Army Playability vs realism

[marshalney2000]

Have been reading the postings on TYW Germans and the discussion on playability vs realism with interest. The comment was made that if more poor troops were imposed on the protestants then this would make them unplayable. I think we have created this situation with other armies such as Bishops War Caroline English i.e. realistic but naff. I would like clarification on where we draw lines here so that i can know where the line is for future army submissions.
From my own point of view I think the Scots Covenanting army comes into the unplayable category because of high numbers of poor foot and other than in 1650 totally poor cavalry. Indeed not only are all the cavalry poor but they (somewhat unfairly in my view) also get the triple whammy of poorer morale, worse tactics and worse armour. In other words totally incapable. Should they suddenly change to make them a playable army?
I ask the question because in may of the lists I will be drafting competition playablity will be a an issue and would like clarification.
Interestingly even my Scot's Royalists are far from being a good army - now if only those Irish were rated as superior!!
Having slogged my way through Peter Wilson's book on the Thirty Years War, my inclination at least on the realism front is that early german protestant armies should have quite a bit of poor foot.
Replies awaited with interest.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Well there seems no reason to me why every version of every list has to be playable. The Bishop's War English is only a variant and nobody is forced to use it, even if they choose to use the Early Caroline English list.

All the 30YW Protestant tournament player has to do is bring an army from before 1626 (or after 1632). No massive hardship.

This is far preferable to a minor variant of a list becoming the only version ever fielded in tournaments - which has often happened in the past. (e.g. King Joao I of Portugal with English allies).

Is it a disaster if some armies that were historically crap never appear in tournaments? (Where they would, inevitably, mostly be playing unhistorical opponents).

We must be careful not to lose historical flavour. If every army can be fielded as pretty much the same tournament build that is definitely not a good thing.

The Scots Covenanter army is not too dreadful from 1650. Before that, I agree it is a bit sad.
The cavalry is the main problem with the pre-1650 army; 3 compulsory BGs of poor foot at 26 points per BG doesn't seem too bad to me, particularly as they are allowed to support Average troops. The army will be huge and could be a hidden tournament tiger provided that it avoids fighting with its cavalry.

[marshalney2000]

Richard, I think you misunderstand my point. Nik, seemed to accept in the case of the early German protestant list that he would not review the numbers of poor upwards in response to the point made by Ghaznavid re simulation. I was just trying to clarify where we we would change a list to apparently make it playable. I apologise to Nik if I misunderstood the point. I just wanted to be clear for when I do future lists. I chose the covenanting list for comparison as it as it has a lot of compulsory poor troops.
As it happens, I think the number of poor foot in the covenanting army is justified (as it probably is in the early German Protestant list as well). If I have any remaining problem with the list it is the triple whammy on the cavalry as I don't think they were as on the whole as bad in 1644 as the suicide jockeys they are shown as. Inferior to the English horse yes but not on three counts.
To summarise,I think Nik has done a great job on the Scottish lists and with the exceptions of the covenanting horse indicated above and the Irish in the royalist list I am more than satisfied.
John

[nikgaukroger]

And there was me coming round to the idea that the Lancers should always have an Average option ...

[marshalney2000]

Nik, I always knew you would with your sage knowledge and ultimate wisdom - equal of course only to Richard's. I think if we give the average option at least for some cavalry then I would be satified with the Covenanter list. Not too unhappy if all the cavalry were to remain poor in 1639.
We still have time to look at the Irish of course!!!
John

[Ghaznavid]

Have been reading the postings on TYW Germans and the discussion on playability vs realism with interest. The comment was made that if more poor troops were imposed on the protestants then this would make them unplayable.

I beg to differ, I never stated it would make them unplayable. I stated it would most likely condemn them to obscurity (and that for a difficult to prove notion). While I've not yet played an army in FoG (much less Fog:R) that had more then around 40% poor troops I doubt it's going to be much fun. If it's not fun it's not going to be played much. Worse if the opposite army is a mere speed bump it's unlikely that the opponent will enjoy the game very much either.
It's also a question of perception. Yes, the protestants were pretty down on moral after 1625 until Gustav shows up. Still it's pretty difficult to say how much of their lack of success in this period is due to bad moral and how much to just being out generaled and outclassed because large numbers of the other guys are now veterans. You don't need to be below average to lose bad vs. above average troops commanded by a far more competent General. (Not to mention that during those years Protestant armies tended to find themselve outnumbered as well.) Making them 2/3 poor is overdoing it IMO. It would also make the protestant armies notably larger then the Catholic ones. As mentioned that's a bit off as well.

OTOH it would be fun to challenge Nik to actually provide proof of his perception and then take it apart. Sadly I lack the free time for that kind of entertainment right now.

[marshalney2000]

Karsten, sounds like the Protestants and Covenanters have a lot in common just substitute Tilly for Montrose or Cromwell. I suspect whther the word is unplayable or obscurity the end result might be same.
John

[nikgaukroger]

I suspect Tilly would have been highly insulted to be considered a protestant, and he was a much better general than either Montrose of Cromwell

[marshalney2000]

My note was indicating that Tilly in charge of the catholic army beat up the protestants in the same way that Cromwell and Montrose beat up the covenanters. Hopefully clear now. Don't disagree with your view on Tilly's abilities but you can only beat what is put in front of you.
John