Slitherine

Note that the question of how tercios are represented is still open so no adjustments have been made to the lists for tercios as yet.

Imperial Spanish

First point is obviously the name change Hope this is OK.

Additionally I have made some differences between armies before 1635 and in Italy and those in Flanders from 1635. Basically I believe that the Flanders army would have more cavalry as it started to operate in northern France - I think the numbers at battles bear this out - whilst before that in the Netherlands cavalry was less useful. I have assumed that Italy being relatively free from war would fall behind so they don't get "modern" options like Determined Horse.

Guardia viejas

As mentioned before these should be, IMO, Heavily Armoured and not Fully Armoured as horse armour (required for Fully Armoured) had not been used since the C16th. The traditional fully armoured lancer had been replaced by the "demi-lancer" with a lighter lance and no horse armour, and usually less personal armour as well. Therefore, I have made them Light Lancers and Heavily Armoured - NB as none of their contemporary opponents use lance the type of lance is actually irrelevant in those match ups.

I don't know where Xavier got Impact Mounted as an option for these from to be honest. If they are the lancers I don't see that they need to be Impact Horse - certainly as they would have been uphill at Nordlingen (and were used to attacj already discomforted Swedish infantry) there is no need for them to have that to get the right effect IMO. To be honest before Xavier suggested it I had never read that there were any lancers at Nordlingen - nor have I ever read that there were any at Rocroi so I am leaving 1635 as the cut off date for them.

I have assumed that the option Xavier put in with Pistol melee capability is to allow for these to be cuirassier types. If this is correct I know of no reason why they would use anuthing other than a normal cuirassier deployment and so be Horse. If there is any information suggestion otherwise please post it and we can make a change


Foreign Regiments

Before 1632 these are rated as Arquebusiers for the shot - are we sure that is correct?


Detached Musketeer Companies

Same question I asked Karsten - are these proper units with no pikemen or groups of shot drawn from their usual units to operate separately? If the latter they would be covered by the Detached Shot rules and not as separate army list entries.


Nordlingen

Added a Special Campaign entry for this - same way that Marston Moor has been dealt with in the ECW.



Thirty Years War Peninsular Spanish

New list thanks to Xavier


Gardias viejas - classified as above.

Detached muskteers - as above.


Miquelets

We really need to know that they did participate in formal battles in large numbers - the current list essentailly allows numbers equal to 3 infantry regiments which is a lot of guerillas for a set piece fight

If they were only there in small numbers (say a 6 base BG) I'd be a lot happier making them Superior. Or, of course, if there is evidence of lots of them having a very large effect on a set piece battle which would also justify it

Would affect the French lists that can have them as well.

nikgaukroger wrote:Imperial Spanish

First point is obviously the name change Hope this is OK.

Is this the only Imperial Spanish list? If not it needs to be distinguished by Early, Later or whatever.

Depends whether there is a clever name we can use for the (essentailly) Philip II army list that will be in Trade & Treachery - I've been trying to think of one May depend on whether it is best to have a Low Coutries Spanish and Spanish in Italy lists for the second half of the C16th.

If there isn't this will be the Later variety.

/bump for our Spanish contributors ...

/bump Xavier?

nikgaukroger wrote:Depends whether there is a clever name we can use for the (essentailly) Philip II army list that will be in Trade & Treachery - I've been trying to think of one May depend on whether it is best to have a Low Coutries Spanish and Spanish in Italy lists for the second half of the C16th.

If there isn't this will be the Later variety.

I don't think we need separate lists for the late 16th century, therefore Early imperial Spanish and Later imperial Spanish seem ok to me

nikgaukroger wrote: Imperial Spanish

Additionally I have made some differences between armies before 1635 and in Italy and those in Flanders from 1635. Basically I believe that the Flanders army would have more cavalry as it started to operate in northern France - I think the numbers at battles bear this out - whilst before that in the Netherlands cavalry was less useful. I have assumed that Italy being relatively free from war would fall behind so they don't get "modern" options like Determined Horse.

Fully agree

nikgaukroger wrote: Guardias viejas

As mentioned before these should be, IMO, Heavily Armoured and not Fully Armoured as horse armour (required for Fully Armoured) had not been used since the C16th. The traditional fully armoured lancer had been replaced by the "demi-lancer" with a lighter lance and no horse armour, and usually less personal armour as well. Therefore, I have made them Light Lancers and Heavily Armoured - NB as none of their contemporary opponents use lance the type of lance is actually irrelevant in those match ups.

OK

nikgaukroger wrote: I don't know where Xavier got Impact Mounted as an option for these from to be honest. If they are the lancers I don't see that they need to be Impact Horse - certainly as they would have been uphill at Nordlingen (and were used to attack already discomforted Swedish infantry) there is no need for them to have that to get the right effect IMO. To be honest before Xavier suggested it I had never read that there were any lancers at Nordlingen - nor have I ever read that there were any at Rocroi so I am leaving 1635 as the cut off date for them.

As I wrote before in a separate email, the description of the old guard as "the remnants of the old feudal noble cavalry" is what made me think they were still charging with lance, but there's actually no explicit mention of the weapons they used, therefore either gendarmes with lance or cavaliers charging with sword and pistol might be correct. Stopping the free choice between them in 1635 seems fine to me.

nikgaukroger wrote: Foreign Regiments

Before 1632 these are rated as Arquebusiers for the shot - are we sure that is correct?

Well, in my draft they could be rated as arquebusiers until 1632, but could also be rated as musketeers from 1621, so that we have a kind of transition period. This transition would have been faster for the units in the Low Countries, and slower for those in Spain and especially in Italy.

nikgaukroger wrote: Detached Musketeer Companies

Same question I asked Karsten - are these proper units with no pikemen or groups of shot drawn from their usual units to operate separately? If the latter they would be covered by the Detached Shot rules and not as separate army list entries.

What Spanish sources call "mangas" are actually groups of shot drawn from a tercio in order to perform special tactical missions. Mangas were detached mainly for three purposes:
- controlling rough terrain from where they could threaten the flanks of advancing enemy units
- support cavalry attacks. Although there was no official doctrine about this (like in the Swedish army), the Spanish also used this tactic in some occasions (at Nordlingen 200 musketeers are detached from a tercio in order to support the cavalry attacking in the right flank)
- reinforce tercios fighting in the front line. Once again, Nordlingen brings us a good example: the tercios of Idiaquez and Toralto that were defending the hill and stood the charges of the swedish infantry for so long received reinforcements of detached mangas of the tercio on their rear in order to cover their casualties.

Detached mangas made tercios much more flexible than they appear at first sight, since a rigid "tercio-castle" was actually complemented with mangas from other tercios that could play different tactical roles depending on the situation.

BTW, the last point made me think of a new special rule that would be both realistic and quite easy to implement in the game. We could allow players to move single bases from a tercio to another being closer than x MUs, simulating reinforcements send to cover casualties but without allowing players to freely move single bases across the table...

nikgaukroger wrote: Thirty Years War Peninsular Spanish
Miquelets

We really need to know that they did participate in formal battles in large numbers - the current list essentailly allows numbers equal to 3 infantry regiments which is a lot of guerillas for a set piece fight

If they were only there in small numbers (say a 6 base BG) I'd be a lot happier making them Superior. Or, of course, if there is evidence of lots of them having a very large effect on a set piece battle which would also justify it

Would affect the French lists that can have them as well.

I think that the 1642 campaign can be a good example. Around 2000 miquelets harassed the over 12.000 men strong Spanish army all the way long from Tarragona to Lleida. Near Lleida the Spanish army met the Franco-Catalan army lead by La Mothe. Miquelets kept on harassing the Spanish army while it deployed for the pitched battle. We don't know what did they exactly do during the battle, since accounts refer only to regular units in standard formations, but I assume they kept on skirmishing against the Spanish units during the battle. At dusk the Spanish tried to retire in good order, but the pressure of the miquelets (that felt at their best under those circumstances) converted an ordered retreat into a chaotic flee, and an apparent draw in the battlefield into a strategic victory for the Franco-Catalans.

xavier wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Detached Musketeer Companies

Same question I asked Karsten - are these proper units with no pikemen or groups of shot drawn from their usual units to operate separately? If the latter they would be covered by the Detached Shot rules and not as separate army list entries.

What Spanish sources call "mangas" are actually groups of shot drawn from a tercio in order to perform special tactical missions. Mangas were detached mainly for three purposes:
- controlling rough terrain from where they could threaten the flanks of advancing enemy units
- support cavalry attacks. Although there was no official doctrine about this (like in the Swedish army), the Spanish also used this tactic in some occasions (at Nordlingen 200 musketeers are detached from a tercio in order to support the cavalry attacking in the right flank)
- reinforce tercios fighting in the front line. Once again, Nordlingen brings us a good example: the tercios of Idiaquez and Toralto that were defending the hill and stood the charges of the swedish infantry for so long received reinforcements of detached mangas of the tercio on their rear in order to cover their casualties.

Detached mangas made tercios much more flexible than they appear at first sight, since a rigid "tercio-castle" was actually complemented with mangas from other tercios that could play different tactical roles depending on the situation.

All sounds like Detached Shot as per the rules to me rather than separate units of musketeers.

nikgaukroger wrote: Thirty Years War Peninsular Spanish
Miquelets

We really need to know that they did participate in formal battles in large numbers - the current list essentailly allows numbers equal to 3 infantry regiments which is a lot of guerillas for a set piece fight

If they were only there in small numbers (say a 6 base BG) I'd be a lot happier making them Superior. Or, of course, if there is evidence of lots of them having a very large effect on a set piece battle which would also justify it

Would affect the French lists that can have them as well.

I think that the 1642 campaign can be a good example. Around 2000 miquelets harassed the over 12.000 men strong Spanish army all the way long from Tarragona to Lleida. Near Lleida the Spanish army met the Franco-Catalan army lead by La Mothe. Miquelets kept on harassing the Spanish army while it deployed for the pitched battle. We don't know what did they exactly do during the battle, since accounts refer only to regular units in standard formations, but I assume they kept on skirmishing against the Spanish units during the battle. At dusk the Spanish tried to retire in good order, but the pressure of the miquelets (that felt at their best under those circumstances) converted an ordered retreat into a chaotic flee, and an apparent draw in the battlefield into a strategic victory for the Franco-Catalans.[/quote]


Excellent - just what we needed and I think it justifies them being in the lists in reasonable numbers However, their lack of mention during the majority of the battles does argue against them being Superior IMO I'm afraid so I'll be keeping them as Average - the effect of Superior LF shooting would have had enough impact on the battle to justify them being mentioned I feel.

nikgaukroger wrote:

xavier wrote:
What Spanish sources call "mangas" are actually groups of shot drawn from a tercio in order to perform special tactical missions. Mangas were detached mainly for three purposes:
- controlling rough terrain from where they could threaten the flanks of advancing enemy units
- support cavalry attacks. Although there was no official doctrine about this (like in the Swedish army), the Spanish also used this tactic in some occasions (at Nordlingen 200 musketeers are detached from a tercio in order to support the cavalry attacking in the right flank)
- reinforce tercios fighting in the front line. Once again, Nordlingen brings us a good example: the tercios of Idiaquez and Toralto that were defending the hill and stood the charges of the swedish infantry for so long received reinforcements of detached mangas of the tercio on their rear in order to cover their casualties.

Detached mangas made tercios much more flexible than they appear at first sight, since a rigid "tercio-castle" was actually complemented with mangas from other tercios that could play different tactical roles depending on the situation.

All sounds like Detached Shot as per the rules to me rather than separate units of musketeers.

Yes indeed. Should we allow them "commanded shot" capabilities?

nikgaukroger wrote:

xavier wrote: Thirty Years War Peninsular Spanish
Miquelets

I think that the 1642 campaign can be a good example. Around 2000 miquelets harassed the over 12.000 men strong Spanish army all the way long from Tarragona to Lleida. Near Lleida the Spanish army met the Franco-Catalan army lead by La Mothe. Miquelets kept on harassing the Spanish army while it deployed for the pitched battle. We don't know what did they exactly do during the battle, since accounts refer only to regular units in standard formations, but I assume they kept on skirmishing against the Spanish units during the battle. At dusk the Spanish tried to retire in good order, but the pressure of the miquelets (that felt at their best under those circumstances) converted an ordered retreat into a chaotic flee, and an apparent draw in the battlefield into a strategic victory for the Franco-Catalans.

Excellent - just what we needed and I think it justifies them being in the lists in reasonable numbers However, their lack of mention during the majority of the battles does argue against them being Superior IMO I'm afraid so I'll be keeping them as Average - the effect of Superior LF shooting would have had enough impact on the battle to justify them being mentioned I feel.

We should take into account that musketeers detached from tercios in order to skirmish are also not explicitly mentioned in battle accounts, which simply refer to the tercios themselves or mangas detached for other roles. The reason behind might be that once the enemy got closer the skirmishing musketeers just formed back with their original tercios. Anyhow, it wouldn't surprise me that the same logic would be applied to other skirmishing troops like miquelets, which in a pitched battle like Lleida might have looked for protection of bigger units once the enemy got closer, leaving that cover behind once the enemy retired and they could harass them freely again.

Moreover, the fact that the French army hired them to create the first elite regiments of fusiliers de montagne should proof their value.

If so high numbers of superior light foot unbalance the game, then I'd rather go for two BGs of 6x superior miquelets than for 3 BGs of 6x average miquelets.

xavier wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

xavier wrote:
What Spanish sources call "mangas" are actually groups of shot drawn from a tercio in order to perform special tactical missions. Mangas were detached mainly for three purposes:
- controlling rough terrain from where they could threaten the flanks of advancing enemy units
- support cavalry attacks. Although there was no official doctrine about this (like in the Swedish army), the Spanish also used this tactic in some occasions (at Nordlingen 200 musketeers are detached from a tercio in order to support the cavalry attacking in the right flank)
- reinforce tercios fighting in the front line. Once again, Nordlingen brings us a good example: the tercios of Idiaquez and Toralto that were defending the hill and stood the charges of the swedish infantry for so long received reinforcements of detached mangas of the tercio on their rear in order to cover their casualties.

Detached mangas made tercios much more flexible than they appear at first sight, since a rigid "tercio-castle" was actually complemented with mangas from other tercios that could play different tactical roles depending on the situation.

All sounds like Detached Shot as per the rules to me rather than separate units of musketeers.

Yes indeed. Should we allow them "commanded shot" capabilities?

No.

However, if Spanish armies used Commanded Shot we can add those to the list(s). I'm not aware of them doing so, however, you may be able to tell me otherwise.

xavier wrote:If so high numbers of superior light foot unbalance the game, then I'd rather go for two BGs of 6x superior miquelets than for 3 BGs of 6x average miquelets.

2 BGs of 6 Superior LF musket would unbalance the game.

nikgaukroger wrote: However, if Spanish armies used Commanded Shot we can add those to the list(s). I'm not aware of them doing so, however, you may be able to tell me otherwise.

If commanded shot requires to be intermingled with mounted (mounted - shot - mounted, etc.), probably not.
If they are shot sent to support the cavalry, then yes.
We know that for example at Nordlingen a manga of 200 musketeers was sent to support the cavalry attacks on the right wing, but we have no details on how did they actually co-operate with the mounted units...

Xavier

rbodleyscott wrote:

xavier wrote:If so high numbers of superior light foot unbalance the game, then I'd rather go for two BGs of 6x superior miquelets than for 3 BGs of 6x average miquelets.

2 BGs of 6 Superior LF musket would unbalance the game.

Then let's stick to the current version with up to 3 BGs of average light foot for the sake of the game balance.
Or force players to choose between a single BG of superior miquelets, or various BGs of average troops...

Xavier

xavier wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: However, if Spanish armies used Commanded Shot we can add those to the list(s). I'm not aware of them doing so, however, you may be able to tell me otherwise.

If commanded shot requires to be intermingled with mounted (mounted - shot - mounted, etc.), probably not.
If they are shot sent to support the cavalry, then yes.
We know that for example at Nordlingen a manga of 200 musketeers was sent to support the cavalry attacks on the right wing, but we have no details on how did they actually co-operate with the mounted units...

Xavier

Commanded shot requires them being intermingled - so that looks like they are not commanded shot. Sorted

BTW I have amended the number of Elite infantry allowed to the Later Imperial Spanish to allow 2 BGs at Rocroi. I don't think 2 are needed to represent Nordlingen as being Superior, uphill, behind FF and supported should do quite well enough most of the time One such BG is, of course, justified to take the initial assult.

xavier wrote:Or force players to choose between a single BG of superior miquelets, or various BGs of average troops...

It would be hard to think of a historically logical reason for that. Let's stick with 0-18 Average.

rbodleyscott wrote:

xavier wrote:Or force players to choose between a single BG of superior miquelets, or various BGs of average troops...

It would be hard to think of a historically logical reason for that. Let's stick with 0-18 Average.

I concur.

rbodleyscott wrote:

xavier wrote:Or force players to choose between a single BG of superior miquelets, or various BGs of average troops...

It would be hard to think of a historically logical reason for that. Let's stick with 0-18 Average.

No historical reason behind, just game balance.
From my point of view miquelets fulfill all requirements to be graded as superior, but we don't want to allow big numbers of superior LF due to game balance.
That's why I suggested a free choice between historical superior grading (like German LF), but in low numbers, or historical big numbers, but average for the game balance sake.

Xavier

xavier wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

xavier wrote:Or force players to choose between a single BG of superior miquelets, or various BGs of average troops...

It would be hard to think of a historically logical reason for that. Let's stick with 0-18 Average.

No historical reason behind, just game balance.
From my point of view miquelets fulfill all requirements to be graded as superior, but we don't want to allow big numbers of superior LF due to game balance.
That's why I suggested a free choice between historical superior grading (like German LF), but in low numbers, or historical big numbers, but average for the game balance sake.

This is not the sort of thing we give free choice on.