Slitherine

.... and another time try a Late Theme where everyone has to bring at least three Horse units, perhaps (you could call it "William and Mare")

madaxeman wrote:Right.. in the absence of anything else, lets give it a go at the BHGS Challenge then and see if the roof caves in on the world.......

Any restrictions on all foot armies with hardly any mounted otherwise it could be a TYW French with regimental gun fest

Alasdair

alasdair2204 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:Right.. in the absence of anything else, lets give it a go at the BHGS Challenge then and see if the roof caves in on the world.......

Any restrictions on all foot armies with hardly any mounted otherwise it could be a TYW French with regimental gun fest

Alasdair

Only if the list checker is really really incompetent ... "Theme Any Army, 1570-1629"

madaxeman wrote:Right.. in the absence of anything else, lets give it a go at the BHGS Challenge then and see if the roof caves in on the world.......

Suggest you put up an announcement in the Tournaments sub-forum (and BHGS website) - best get this circulated ASAP I think.

Only if the list checker is really really incompetent ... "Theme Any Army, 1570-1629"

I think I might have spotted that! Seriously, that would be a good one to try it at.

Sorry thought the date was till 1635

apologies

Alasdair

alasdair2204 wrote:Sorry thought the date was till 1635

apologies

Alasdair

Closest equivalent in those dates would presumably be the Early Gustavan?

daveallen wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Agreed. Which does rather suggest that the only restriction required (if any) is a required minimum of non-light foot per medium/heavy artillery unit.

I too am not sure this is a good idea, especially as there are armies where the minimum compulsory foot would be doubled simply because of the minimum compulsory artillery.

How about applying the restriction to non-compulsory artillery - each base of non-compulsory Med/Hvy Artillery requiring at least x bases of non-compulsory non-light foot.

(snip)

Dave

Or alternatively how about - 'if an army has less than 12 bases of foot battle troops per 2 bases of medium or heavy artillery then the artillery must roll a CMT at deployment to see if they appear at all' ???

Just a suggestion....

Cheers

Richard

nikgaukroger wrote:I also note that nobody seems to be worried that the Qing would be forced to take infantry that they currently do not need to take ...

Even Alasdair takes a fair amount of infantry when he uses Qing.

Nobody cares, because nobody wants to take an all cavalry/artillery version.

Maniakes wrote:.... and another time try a Late Theme where everyone has to bring at least three Horse units, perhaps (you could call it "William and Mare")

But then I will have to paint 2 more units

rbodleyscott wrote:

Maniakes wrote:.... and another time try a Late Theme where everyone has to bring at least three Horse units, perhaps (you could call it "William and Mare")

But then I will have to paint 2 more units

It'll be morally uplifting for you I'm sure

If you don't like Mr P.'s theme name, how about the Wars of Louis the 14 hands high...?

So a suggestion for an experimental D&G themed comp (to see how it works, not as a permanent situation, of course) ...

Everybody: must field at least 2 BGs of mounted battle troops. Average mounted BGs can be fielded in BGs of 6.

French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average
Everybody else: may upgrade one mounted BG to superior if their list doesn't already allow it.

You'd probably then get a mix of Anglo-Dutch, French, Austrian and Danish ... although the others wouldn't be unviable. You'd get significant cavalry contingents. Keeping this restriction to a one-off themed comp makes things simpler.

Martin

martinvantol wrote: French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average

Why would you not also apply that to the Swedes and Poles? Both can field just as large numbers of Superior mounted as the French.

As an aside I have to say that every time I look at Duty & Glory I wish we'd stopped the FoG:R period at the end of the TYW, or maybe at the Peace of the Pyrenees

nikgaukroger wrote:

martinvantol wrote: French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average

Why would you not also apply that to the Swedes and Poles? Both can field just as large numbers of Superior mounted as the French.

As an aside I have to say that every time I look at Duty & Glory I wish we'd stopped the FoG:R period at the end of the TYW, or maybe at the Peace of the Pyrenees

Fair enough, for the sake of one experimental competition I probably would apply the same to them.

I think the rule set is good for late C17. I've always thought that the D&G army lists were written to allow those armies to be compatible in open competitions. Is this the case? It's the fact that nearly every army gets only average mounted, but doesn't have to have many of them.

Martin

martinvantol wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

martinvantol wrote: French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average

Why would you not also apply that to the Swedes and Poles? Both can field just as large numbers of Superior mounted as the French.

As an aside I have to say that every time I look at Duty & Glory I wish we'd stopped the FoG:R period at the end of the TYW, or maybe at the Peace of the Pyrenees

Fair enough, for the sake of one experimental competition I probably would apply the same to them.

I think the rule set is good for late C17. I've always thought that the D&G army lists were written to allow those armies to be compatible in open competitions. Is this the case? It's the fact that nearly every army gets only average mounted, but doesn't have to have many of them.

Martin

I think we were probably a bit concerned that the later armies might skew open competitions and so were looking a bit more at that aspect than we did with other list books - which was possibly a mistake with hindsight. However, part of my view is based on the fact that the later C17th is the part of the period I knew least about and rather felt that we could have done with more time to research the lists than we had allowed to us. To be honest there are a number of points at which you could close off the period between the end of the TYW and the end of the C17th it was always going to be a bit arbitrary. One of the big factors towards the end of the century is the significantly larger armies that are fielded - if you look at the French army as an example in the period 1635-59 the average size of a field army is about 15,000 men; during the Dutch War 1672-78 it has risen to about 24,500 and in the The War of the League of Augsburg it reaches 39,000 men. Couple this with the ever increasing importance of musketry and I think that by the last wars of the C17th you really have a different form of warfare.

martinvantol wrote:So a suggestion for an experimental D&G themed comp (to see how it works, not as a permanent situation, of course) ...

Everybody: must field at least 2 BGs of mounted battle troops. Average mounted BGs can be fielded in BGs of 6.

French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average
Everybody else: may upgrade one mounted BG to superior if their list doesn't already allow it.

You'd probably then get a mix of Anglo-Dutch, French, Austrian and Danish ... although the others wouldn't be unviable. You'd get significant cavalry contingents. Keeping this restriction to a one-off themed comp makes things simpler.

Martin

So now we are making general changes to all the lists, 1/2 the French mounted must be average, why, you are already making them take more foot if they want guns, it feels like we are starting to get to the place where people should be just allowed to make their own lists up. French lists are not dominating, so can I suggest there are far to many guards in the anglo dutch and that their must be 3 average foot for each superior, when do we stop, it feels like Martin doesn't like mounted armies and is doing everything to hamstring them but doing nothing to foot. French is the only later list I use and it is the only army singled out to have more average, why?

Alasdair

Alasdair

martinvantol wrote:So a suggestion for an experimental D&G themed comp (to see how it works, not as a permanent situation, of course) ...

Everybody: must field at least 2 BGs of mounted battle troops. Average mounted BGs can be fielded in BGs of 6.

French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average
Everybody else: may upgrade one mounted BG to superior if their list doesn't already allow it.

You'd probably then get a mix of Anglo-Dutch, French, Austrian and Danish ... although the others wouldn't be unviable. You'd get significant cavalry contingents. Keeping this restriction to a one-off themed comp makes things simpler.

Martin

What the hell?

So, you take away the only advantage the French have, make it into a disadvantage and then expect people to turn up with them?

I wouldn't be coming anyway (I'm in teh wrong country) but if I lived there you woudl just have lost me as a player!

The "William and Mare" thing was mostly a bit of a weak joke. Maybe we should hold back on any more ideas until we have tried out one of them once ...

I don't know about anyone else but I see any of these ideas as only applying to a few competitions to bring in variety, with a lot of competitions carrying on as they are now.

Dave P

martinvantol wrote:So a suggestion for an experimental D&G themed comp (to see how it works, not as a permanent situation, of course) ...

Everybody: must field at least 2 BGs of mounted battle troops. Average mounted BGs can be fielded in BGs of 6.

French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average
Everybody else: may upgrade one mounted BG to superior if their list doesn't already allow it.

You'd probably then get a mix of Anglo-Dutch, French, Austrian and Danish ... although the others wouldn't be unviable. You'd get significant cavalry contingents. Keeping this restriction to a one-off themed comp makes things simpler.

Martin

You are always free to run whatever restrictions you wish at any competition you organise yourself.... But if you want to sound people out about it it's probably better to announce dates and a venue as well, and post any ideas you have in the Tournaments thread rather than here...