Hungarian-Transylvanian

[nikgaukroger]

Once again thanks to Karsten for this list.

Here are my idiot questions - mostly asked so that I'm happy that there is consistency between lists current and planned.


Boyars

Can I just confirm that unlike, say, Polish Husaria the Heavily Armoured chaps do have armour equivalent to western cuirassiers for the whole unit. We will be rating the Husaria as Armoured because they are somewhat of a micx and so I want to be sure that these Boyars are better equipped on average. If Heavily Armoured they will be Gendarmes - makes little real difference, but we don't have Heavily Armoured Cavaliers.

Can I also confirm that Cavalier has been chosen because they are somewhat uncontrolled - it is the main reason for using that classification as opposed to other sorts of cavalry/horse really.

Lastly an inevitable question as to the choice of Impact Mounted. I am guessing that this is related to their continued use of the lance, however, to justify it we have to be able to say they had the same effect as the Polish Husaria on western (impact) pistol types. Otherwise Light Lance may be more appropriate as it still gives them a significant impact advantage over Turks as similar who will (mostly) have no impact capability. As I knocked back the Spanish on this one I want to double check I'm being consistent.


Vitejii

Intrigued by these not being Cavalry. Feels unusual in an easternish army - but a nice difference Sort of eastern bandellier reiter I take it?


Dorobanti

Just checking that the 2 options with different types of musket capability is correct - I am willing to consider Musket, Heavy Weapon if it is more justified but would want Richard's opinion as well.


Territory

If the list will cover up to 1645 will more of Hungary be included and so are the territory types OK for the extended period?

[rbodleyscott]

Dorobanti

Just checking that the 2 options with different types of musket capability is correct - I am willing to consider Musket, Heavy Weapon if it is more justified but would want Richard's opinion as well.

I cannot really see there being any justification for Swordsmen capability (as opposed to HW) if they are armed with big Berdische axes.

I quite like musket*, HW to avoid any superness.

Don't forget that they will be on + in close combat (impact and melee) vs normal unprotected musketeers - which is what they are most likely to meet if they keep to the terrain (apart from enclosed fields/villages).

[Ghaznavid]

Boyars

Can I just confirm that unlike, say, Polish Husaria the Heavily Armoured chaps do have armour equivalent to western cuirassiers for the whole unit. We will be rating the Husaria as Armoured because they are somewhat of a micx and so I want to be sure that these Boyars are better equipped on average. If Heavily Armoured they will be Gendarmes - makes little real difference, but we don't have Heavily Armoured Cavaliers.

Can I also confirm that Cavalier has been chosen because they are somewhat uncontrolled - it is the main reason for using that classification as opposed to other sorts of cavalry/horse really.

They used "Trabharnische" (basically 3/4 plate armour) at the start. Those armours were considered outdated since the end of the 16th century in western Europe. One common theory (aside of them just being backwaterish) is that such armour was very effective against arrows. Over time (and with more exposure to the western way of war one assumes) they changed to the somewhat less complete but stronger around vital areas (i.e. the famous "bullet proof" breast plate) armour of the German Cuirassiers. So yes they are at least as heavily armoured as German Cuirassiers. Those that couldn't afford the armour found themselves among the Viteji or Hussars.

I chose Cavaliers because they still seem to have behaved like medieval knights and because their (German) opponents remarked upon their shallow formations and their fierce if unorderly charge. I considered Gendarmes but somehow in my mind that term is connected to fully armoured chaps on heavily barded horses.
As Richard pointed out they might be better classed as Gendarmes though (btw. aside from the armour levels possible, is there any difference between gendarmes and cavaliers? I couldn't find any in the rules when I looked).

That aside, what makes you think that they weren't around after 1629? I can't remember reading anything that would suggest so (and I might point out that the ally list is not so restricted).

Lastly an inevitable question as to the choice of Impact Mounted. I am guessing that this is related to their continued use of the lance, however, to justify it we have to be able to say they had the same effect as the Polish Husaria on western (impact) pistol types. Otherwise Light Lance may be more appropriate as it still gives them a significant impact advantage over Turks as similar who will (mostly) have no impact capability. As I knocked back the Spanish on this one I want to double check I'm being consistent.

Difficult to say for sure Bethlen felt that his lack of artillery and enough descent foot did not usually allow him to risk open field battle with Imperial armies. The two occasions I found are both from the Austrian 'counter invasion' in upper Hungary in 1621. There the Boyars won out handily vs. the Cuirassiers. Both engagements were during what I would call a large skirmishes though.
I darkly remember reading an account that mentions a fight between Boyars and Cuirassiers during Georg I's reign that was also won by the Boyars. I've to admit though I can't remember how it went or how even the numbers were. (The Imperial troops seem to have lost about all notable engagements in Hungary in 1643, but then they were usally outnumbered as well).

Vitejii

Intrigued by these not being Cavalry. Feels unusual in an easternish army - but a nice difference Sort of eastern bandellier reiter I take it?

Exactly, remember the German name for Transylvania is 'Siebenbürgen' and there is (even today) a significant number of Siebenbürgen-Sachsen (Saxons) living in that area. Granted there was an ever increasing influx of other people and some adaption to local culture since they had settled here between the 11th and 13th century), but German culture and customs were still pretty strong among those people. I originally assumed they would provid some decent infantry (as they had done during medieval times) but couldn't find anything (outside from sieges that is). There are notes of them contributing 'Reiters' however.

Dorobanti

Just checking that the 2 options with different types of musket capability is correct - I am willing to consider Musket, Heavy Weapon if it is more justified but would want Richard's opinion as well.

I assumed that musket and HW together was a no-go, so left the choice to the players. If it is permitable by all means make them musket, HW and remove the options as well as the notes to it.

Territory

If the list will cover up to 1645 will more of Hungary be included and so are the territory types OK for the extended period?

Well one could argue for steppes, but then deforestation wasn't that bad in the region and medeival hungarians don't get steppe either.
(In other words up to you, I don't feel strongly about it either way.)

[rbodleyscott]

They used "Trabharnische" (basically 3/4 plate armour) at the start. Those armours were considered outdated since the end of the 16th century in western Europe. One common theory (aside of them just being backwaterish) is that such armour was very effective against arrows.

Which reminds me. I do wonder whether bow, bow*, sling or javlins should get a - POA when shooting at heavily armoured mounted. (At the moment they only do vs fully armoured).

[Ghaznavid]

Hmm, I've to admit I didn't face enough bows in FoG:R (actually next to none so far) to consider myself qualified to answer that ... but well, I can always post a reply to appear courteous while getting my post count up.
Technically the armour might suggest it's appropriate, OTOH the horse is (usually) unarmoured and hence a good target even if the rider can't be touched, while horses are hard to kill with arrows they are easy to inconvenience. It seems however that was frequently not considered the main problem throughout the ages... ok many words to say I don't know.

[nikgaukroger]

Boyars

Can I just confirm that unlike, say, Polish Husaria the Heavily Armoured chaps do have armour equivalent to western cuirassiers for the whole unit. We will be rating the Husaria as Armoured because they are somewhat of a micx and so I want to be sure that these Boyars are better equipped on average. If Heavily Armoured they will be Gendarmes - makes little real difference, but we don't have Heavily Armoured Cavaliers.

Can I also confirm that Cavalier has been chosen because they are somewhat uncontrolled - it is the main reason for using that classification as opposed to other sorts of cavalry/horse really.

They used "Trabharnische" (basically 3/4 plate armour) at the start. Those armours were considered outdated since the end of the 16th century in western Europe. One common theory (aside of them just being backwaterish) is that such armour was very effective against arrows. Over time (and with more exposure to the western way of war one assumes) they changed to the somewhat less complete but stronger around vital areas (i.e. the famous "bullet proof" breast plate) armour of the German Cuirassiers. So yes they are at least as heavily armoured as German Cuirassiers. Those that couldn't afford the armour found themselves among the Viteji or Hussars.

Cheers - that sorts that out then

I chose Cavaliers because they still seem to have behaved like medieval knights and because their (German) opponents remarked upon their shallow formations and their fierce if unorderly charge. I considered Gendarmes but somehow in my mind that term is connected to fully armoured chaps on heavily barded horses.
As Richard pointed out they might be better classed as Gendarmes though (btw. aside from the armour levels possible, is there any difference between gendarmes and cavaliers? I couldn't find any in the rules when I looked).

There aren't - it is a "colour" thing to call them different names; it would feel odd to call Rupert's horsemen "Gendarmes" or French gendarmes of 1500 "Cavaliers"

That aside, what makes you think that they weren't around after 1629? I can't remember reading anything that would suggest so (and I might point out that the ally list is not so restricted).

It was where you said in another topic:

Well I assumed (from the original dates) the list was intended to cover for Gabor Bethlens armies only. If you restrict the Tercios timewise, phase out the lancers after 1626-28,

Lastly an inevitable question as to the choice of Impact Mounted. I am guessing that this is related to their continued use of the lance, however, to justify it we have to be able to say they had the same effect as the Polish Husaria on western (impact) pistol types. Otherwise Light Lance may be more appropriate as it still gives them a significant impact advantage over Turks as similar who will (mostly) have no impact capability. As I knocked back the Spanish on this one I want to double check I'm being consistent.

Difficult to say for sure Bethlen felt that his lack of artillery and enough descent foot did not usually allow him to risk open field battle with Imperial armies. The two occasions I found are both from the Austrian 'counter invasion' in upper Hungary in 1621. There the Boyars won out handily vs. the Cuirassiers. Both engagements were during what I would call a large skirmishes though.
I darkly remember reading an account that mentions a fight between Boyars and Cuirassiers during Georg I's reign that was also won by the Boyars. I've to admit though I can't remember how it went or how even the numbers were. (The Imperial troops seem to have lost about all notable engagements in Hungary in 1643, but then they were usally outnumbered as well).

I'll think about it.

Vitejii

Intrigued by these not being Cavalry. Feels unusual in an easternish army - but a nice difference Sort of eastern bandellier reiter I take it?

Exactly, remember the German name for Transylvania is 'Siebenbürgen' and there is (even today) a significant number of Siebenbürgen-Sachsen (Saxons) living in that area. Granted there was an ever increasing influx of other people and some adaption to local culture since they had settled here between the 11th and 13th century), but German culture and customs were still pretty strong among those people. I originally assumed they would provid some decent infantry (as they had done during medieval times) but couldn't find anything (outside from sieges that is). There are notes of them contributing 'Reiters' however.

I may include some of this in the Troop Notes

Dorobanti

Just checking that the 2 options with different types of musket capability is correct - I am willing to consider Musket, Heavy Weapon if it is more justified but would want Richard's opinion as well.

I assumed that musket and HW together was a no-go, so left the choice to the players. If it is permitable by all means make them musket, HW and remove the options as well as the notes to it.

Richard doesn't want it so I'll leave as is. We do, however, need a justification as to the Swordsmen option for a big axe.

BTW I'd just like to confirm that they were reasonably effective in hand to hand combat - what makes me ask is that when I had a quick look at Russian Streltsi, also equipped with an axe, they didn't appear, on the whole, to actually have been much good in close combat and so we may not give them an impact/melee capability despite the presence of the axe.

[rbodleyscott]

Russian Streltsi, also equipped with an axe, didn't appear, on the whole, to actually have been much good in close combat and so we may not give them an impact/melee capability despite the presence of the axe.

OTOH they are somewhat iconic, and maybe we should give them the option to have HW in the lists, with a troop note to say that it is arguable whether they actually deserve it. Hence the option to field them without it.

[Ghaznavid]

I chose Cavaliers because they still seem to have behaved like medieval knights and because their (German) opponents remarked upon their shallow formations and their fierce if unorderly charge. I considered Gendarmes but somehow in my mind that term is connected to fully armoured chaps on heavily barded horses.
As Richard pointed out they might be better classed as Gendarmes though (btw. aside from the armour levels possible, is there any difference between gendarmes and cavaliers? I couldn't find any in the rules when I looked).

There aren't - it is a "colour" thing to call them different names; it would feel odd to call Rupert's horsemen "Gendarmes" or French gendarmes of 1500 "Cavaliers"

And it does not feel odd to call medieval french chevaliers 'Knights' in FoG:AM? Boy, oh boy, you need to get off that island more often, it's not as much the center of the world as history teaching in English schools makes you believe.

That aside, what makes you think that they weren't around after 1629? I can't remember reading anything that would suggest so (and I might point out that the ally list is not so restricted).

It was where you said in another topic:

Well I assumed (from the original dates) the list was intended to cover for Gabor Bethlens armies only. If you restrict the Tercios timewise, phase out the lancers after 1626-28,

Ahh my bad for not being more specific then. I was thinking of the 1st line with the heavy lancers/swordsmen guys. They had pretty certainly all converted to (also) using pistols in melee by 1630.

Dorobanti

Richard doesn't want it so I'll leave as is. We do, however, need a justification as to the Swordsmen option for a big axe.

BTW I'd just like to confirm that they were reasonably effective in hand to hand combat - what makes me ask is that when I had a quick look at Russian Streltsi, also equipped with an axe, they didn't appear, on the whole, to actually have been much good in close combat and so we may not give them an impact/melee capability despite the presence of the axe.

Also not so simple. They were professional mercenaries, so one would assume they had a handle on their weapons. There is a note from one of the defenders at the siege of Pressburg, that they could chop straight through any armor with their long hafted axes. so it seems at least this (anonymus) guy considered them effective in melee. I don't remember any direct battle accounts from them though (but then battle accounts, especially from eyewitnesses seem to be rather rare for that army, presumably there are some in Hungarian, but my Hungarian is way to rudimentary to try and read those).

[rbodleyscott]

There aren't - it is a "colour" thing to call them different names; it would feel odd to call Rupert's horsemen "Gendarmes" or French gendarmes of 1500 "Cavaliers"

And it does not feel odd to call medieval french chevaliers 'Knights' in FoG:AM? Boy, oh boy, you need to get off that island more often, it's not as much the center of the world as history teaching in English schools makes you believe.

Well this is, of course, the English edition, so has to sound right to English ears. Whoever translates the German edition (if, as one would hope, there is one) can call them something that sounds correct to German ears.

[nikgaukroger]

Dorobanti

We do, however, need a justification as to the Swordsmen option for a big axe.

Still need this or should we only have Musket*, Heavy weapon?

[nikgaukroger]

There aren't - it is a "colour" thing to call them different names; it would feel odd to call Rupert's horsemen "Gendarmes" or French gendarmes of 1500 "Cavaliers"

And it does not feel odd to call medieval french chevaliers 'Knights' in FoG:AM? Boy, oh boy, you need to get off that island more often, it's not as much the center of the world as history teaching in English schools makes you believe.

Well this is, of course, the English edition, so has to sound right to English ears. Whoever translates the German edition (if, as one would hope, there is one) can call them something that sounds correct to German ears.

Not sure there will be non-English versions of FoG:R - at least in a published book. I don't think the market for the period is anywhere near the size of that for ancients and, apparantly, the FoG:AM non-English rules have not sold as well as hoped.

[Ghaznavid]

And it does not feel odd to call medieval french chevaliers 'Knights' in FoG:AM? Boy, oh boy, you need to get off that island more often, it's not as much the center of the world as history teaching in English schools makes you believe.

Well this is, of course, the English edition, so has to sound right to English ears. Whoever translates the German edition (if, as one would hope, there is one) can call them something that sounds correct to German ears.

Not sure there will be non-English versions of FoG:R - at least in a published book. I don't think the market for the period is anywhere near the size of that for ancients and, apparantly, the FoG:AM non-English rules have not sold as well as hoped.

I doubt that as well, for one the translation of FoG:AM was already under way at this stage in the beta. Like Nik I also doubt the market is sufficient (Napoleonics I could possibly see, although a lot of the people I know that have Napoleonic minis do not actually play with them, but Renaissance seems to much of a niche).
As for dissapointing sales of the translation ... well I guess the timing was wrong. Had the translations been available at the same time as the English version I guess they would have sold better (on the expense of the English version of course). As is many people already had the English version and while they might have prefered the German translation they did not feel they needed it badly enough to buy it in addition. One other point that hampers the sales of the German version is that Amazon.de for some reason does not carry it. I can get the English FoG Rules via Amazon.de no problem, but the German version is available only via external seller on Amazons marketplace and (all of them are from outside Germany, so you need a CC to buy from them). Of course you can get the German version in Germany, but not being able to get it von Amazon.de is certain to hurt the sales badly.


As for Cavaliers and Gendarmes ... Colour is for the army books IMO, not the troop type classifications in the main rules, some chrome might be ok, otherwise KISS should rule. At the very least you should note in the troop descriptions that there is no game play difference between Cavaliers and Gendarmes, otherwise I'm sure that will soon find it's w ay into the FAQ.

[nikgaukroger]

Boyars

Having had a think I'm going to err on the side of safety and classify the later types as Light Lancers, Pistols - which itself is going to be a bit unusual. It may be playing a bit to the mythology of the Polish Husaria as being rather special, but I can live with that as the Heavily Armoured option compensates when combined with the Pistols melee capability - stay steady and they'll crucify the Husaria (Armoured, Impact Horse, Swordsmen) being ++ in melee; go disrupted and they'll be on net nil PoA but down in dice.

Can I just check that the 3/4 armour is OK to the list end of 1645?


Mercenary Cuirassiers

As they are going out of fashion in the rest of Europe I'm putting in a 1635 cut off for these with demi-cuirassiers allowed after that point. Is this reasonable?


Mercenary Infantry

Forgot to ask - just need to confirm these were used after Bethlen's time as well?


Dorobanti

Unless I hear otherwise the Swordsmen option is going.

[Ghaznavid]

Boyars
Having had a think I'm going to err on the side of safety and classify the later types as Light Lancers, Pistols - which itself is going to be a bit unusual. It may be playing a bit to the mythology of the Polish Husaria as being rather special, but I can live with that as the Heavily Armoured option compensates when combined with the Pistols melee capability - stay steady and they'll crucify the Husaria (Armoured, Impact Horse, Swordsmen) being ++ in melee; go disrupted and they'll be on net nil PoA but down in dice.

Can I just check that the 3/4 armour is OK to the list end of 1645?

As stated they did change to more western cuirassier armor towards the end of Bethlens reign, should be still good enough for heavily armoured though (and there is the armoured options for those who think otherwise). They do seem to have stuck with wearing comparably heavy armour though, even while western cuirassiers got lighter and lighter.

Mercenary Cuirassiers

As they are going out of fashion in the rest of Europe I'm putting in a 1635 cut off for these with demi-cuirassiers allowed after that point. Is this reasonable?

Since they are really Germans (mostly Bohemian), yes I guess so.

Mercenary Infantry

Forgot to ask - just need to confirm these were used after Bethlen's time as well?

Aye, again probably mostly of Bohemian origin. Coming to think of it, in many ways this army reminds me on the Black Army. Native cavalry combined with Bohemian mercs, just firearms added. Well I guess given that their main opponents (Ottomans) didn't change much they did not have the need to change much either.

[Ghaznavid]

Hmm, to be blunt I find it somewhat odd that Nik first doubles the maximum of Hussars permitted and then a few days later wonders if that aren't to many many cheap light horse in the list. I consider it important that the list offers a couple of BGs LH that are likely to get creamed if they get into close combat with other LH. If you must make them bow only or poor or whatever, but having only melee capable LH in the list IS wrong.

[rbodleyscott]

Hmm, to be blunt I find it somewhat odd that Nik first doubles the maximum of Hussars permitted and then a few days later wonders if that aren't to many many cheap light horse in the list. I consider it important that the list offers a couple of BGs LH that are likely to get creamed if they get into close combat with other LH. If you must make them bow only or poor or whatever, but having only melee capable LH in the list IS wrong.

The solution might be to allow a limited number without melee capability, and a larger number with melee capability.

[nikgaukroger]

Hmm, to be blunt I find it somewhat odd that Nik first doubles the maximum of Hussars permitted

Initial stab at making sure the points fit the guidelines.

and then a few days later wonders if that aren't to many many cheap light horse in the list. I consider it important that the list offers a couple of BGs LH that are likely to get creamed if they get into close combat with other LH. If you must make them bow only or poor or whatever, but having only melee capable LH in the list IS wrong.

IMO the melee capability is a bit of a red herring as there are very few troops that LH are ever going to get into combat with and so get any benefit from it.

However, I'm not averse to adding in some compulsory non-melee capability types.

[Ghaznavid]

and then a few days later wonders if that aren't to many many cheap light horse in the list. I consider it important that the list offers a couple of BGs LH that are likely to get creamed if they get into close combat with other LH. If you must make them bow only or poor or whatever, but having only melee capable LH in the list IS wrong.

IMO the melee capability is a bit of a red herring as there are very few troops that LH are ever going to get into combat with and so get any benefit from it.
However, I'm not averse to adding in some compulsory non-melee capability types.

As stated, it is about combat with other LH and that is a distinct possibility, if or not other reason as you might not get away so easily from other LH. About 3 BGs should probably suffice. Might be a good idea to allow at least 1 BG in the ally list as well (not sure it's necessary to achive the right results at any possible scenario, but one never knows).

[rbodleyscott]

However, I'm not averse to adding in some compulsory non-melee capability types.

About 3 BGs should probably suffice.

Compulsory or non-compulsory Karsten?

(BTW, pardon my ignorance, but who are the LH that are supposed to be beating them?)

[nikgaukroger]

However, I'm not averse to adding in some compulsory non-melee capability types.

About 3 BGs should probably suffice.

Compulsory or non-compulsory Karsten?

(BTW, pardon my ignorance, but who are the LH that are supposed to be beating them?)

I'm guessing Tatars in Ottoman service - can't think of any others they would fight.