Early C16th German lists

[nikgaukroger]

Some comments from Karsten on the lists he has drafted (many thanks).

I renamed the Early German Imperial to Maximillian Imperial as that's
basically what the list is all about. If you don't like it change it back.

I’ve considered giving the poorly equipped MAA a poor option, but I think that
might be overdoing it. Likewise I considered a Heavily Armoured option, but
that might make them to good. Maybe allowing them in average/armoured or
poor/heavily armoured would get the right effect, not sure.

The early Berittene Hakenbüchsenschützen are sort of a problem, the best fit
would be Heavily armoured determined Horse, but there is no such thing. So I
used horse, despite them using shallow formations. If you can think of
something more fitting …

As for the Reiters in the German States lists many still used a short lance
called “Sauspieß (Boarspear)” for melee at the start so I’ve allowed the
option of either pistol or swordsmen for them, but I’m not sure the rules
actually cover that? Didn’t really read that way. If not remove the Swordsmen
option.

Finally I used a somewhat conservative estimate for the Artillery, if you feel
like it increase it.

[Ghaznavid]

Some more comments:
Maximillian Imperial

Sorry forgot to remove the Italian MAA from the main list after adding them to the special sections.

As you made the Only in Italy options part of the special campaign section, it makes sense to ahjust the list note accordingly, i.e. remove the "only in Italy" bit from: English allies cannot be combined with any “Only in Italy” or “Special Campaign” option.


German States Allies
Forgot to adjust point costs for the commanders

[nikgaukroger]

OK, sorted those out (I think).

[nikgaukroger]

The early Berittene Hakenbüchsenschützen are sort of a problem, the best fit
would be Heavily armoured determined Horse, but there is no such thing. So I
used horse, despite them using shallow formations. If you can think of
something more fitting …

I think they're just going to have to be a bit of a casualty of keeping troop types managable.

As for the Reiters in the German States lists many still used a short lance
called “Sauspieß (Boarspear)” for melee at the start so I’ve allowed the
option of either pistol or swordsmen for them, but I’m not sure the rules
actually cover that? Didn’t really read that way. If not remove the Swordsmen
option.

OK, I'm rather unsure about these chaps and what they actually did.

Did they primarily stand off and shoot?

Did they reserve pistols for close combat?

The spear could alwats be a Light Lancers impact capability of course.

They crop up occasionally else where so we need to get them consistent - at present I think they are Light Lancers, Pistols in other lists, but this can easily be changed.

[nikgaukroger]

German deep formations


Other rule sets talk about the Germans of this period using deeper than usual formations - often attributed to a way of "hiding" men with less than up to date kit away at the rear.

Is this actually a fact or some sort of gamers myth?

If a fact we may be looking to something more creative in the German Gendarmes classification.

[Ghaznavid]

As for the Reiters in the German States lists many still used a short lance
called “Sauspieß (Boarspear)” for melee at the start so I’ve allowed the
option of either pistol or swordsmen for them, but I’m not sure the rules
actually cover that? Didn’t really read that way. If not remove the Swordsmen
option.

OK, I'm rather unsure about these chaps and what they actually did.

Did they primarily stand off and shoot?

Did they reserve pistols for close combat?

The spear could alwats be a Light Lancers impact capability of course.

They crop up occasionally else where so we need to get them consistent - at present I think they are Light Lancers, Pistols in other lists, but this can easily be changed.

Basically it seems there were two lots, those with two pistols and those equipped with spears (and usually only one pistol). Unsurprisingly the 2nd category was more common at first slowly dropping of in favour of the 1st.
Generally it seems Reiters of this period preferred to use their pistols from a distance either riding off to reload or closing to melee after discharging them.
The 1st category probably tended to ride off and reload, but if charged sometimes reserved the 2nd pistol for later use (they do not seem to have used it just before impact though).
The spear armed category was more likely to charge after discharging their pistol. I've not come upon anything suggesting Reiters armed only with a single pistol ever preserving them for impact/melee at this time. (Though I'm sure if one searches diligently enough a contradicting example can be found.)

German deep formations

Other rule sets talk about the Germans of this period using deeper than usual formations - often attributed to a way of "hiding" men with less than up to date kit away at the rear.

Is this actually a fact or some sort of gamers myth?

If a fact we may be looking to something more creative in the German Gendarmes classification.

Well as usually it's complicated. Deep(er) formations were used and at least part of the reason was to 'hide' poorer armoured chaps. It's important to note though that poorer armoured mostly means no 'bullet-proof' breastplates, etc. and often also no or limited horse armour. They still had a full harness (if sometimes forgoing leg armour), although that probably was 10 or 20 years behind the latest fashion.
It's also a problem that those formations weren't always used. It seems somewhat connected with army size. The larger the army (read as the more MAA) the more often such formations seem to have appeared. Most likely because the more of your nobility you summon the less you are able to leave those behind that are not up to date with their armour.
They were also more common with ally forces, as these usually had only a thin veneer of quality troops (unless the noble sending the allied force had a very vested interest in the outcome). Also Maximillian (being unpopular among the princes) usually got only crap troops if he requested some for his army (hence the higher number of poorly equipped MAA in the Imperial list), which might explain the poor showing of German MAA in Italy for example.
I've been considering creating something like the mixed Kn/Cv formations the later Polish get in FoG:AM. But honestly having seen those in action I've to conclude they come up a crupper on the table. Lacking a better idea I opted for an alternate view/approach. There is a theory that those deep formations weren't actually single bodies, but actually separate "lines" acting in close concert. Hence the requirement for so and so many poorly equipped MAA.
If you have a better idea ...

[Ghaznavid]

Regarding the German MAA, and their deep formations, any ideas? I've been considering several ideas, but basically I'm afraid we should have paid attention to that problem while the rules were written. The best option with the rules as they stand is probably to make to remove the armoured Cavaliers and make them Horse. 1/2 each BG Heavily Armoured Horse, Light Lance, Swordsmen and 1/2 Armoured Horse (perhaps with the option for Heavily armoured by removing 1 base of Gendarmes for every 2 bases so upgraded, something like that), Light Lance, Swordsmen.

[rbodleyscott]

Regarding the German MAA, and their deep formations, any ideas? I've been considering several ideas, but basically I'm afraid we should have paid attention to that problem while the rules were written. The best option with the rules as they stand is probably to make to remove the armoured Cavaliers and make them Horse. 1/2 each BG Heavily Armoured Horse, Light Lance, Swordsmen and 1/2 Armoured Horse (perhaps with the option for Heavily armoured by removing 1 base of Gendarmes for every 2 bases so upgraded, something like that), Light Lance, Swordsmen.

As far as can see, if they habitually formed up in deep formations they should be classified as Horse. And all of each BG should have the same armour class, based on the overall effect. (This is a fundamental tenet of the rules).

[nikgaukroger]

The Horse solution is the one I would favour - it was certainly how deeper formations were envisioned during the rule writing and how the French catholic gendarmes post 1562 are depicted when they started to use formations of a similar depth to the reiters.

From what Karsten has written it should be an option and not compulsory - however, as he suggests it is inked to army size I wonder if the best approach is to have it that if there are up to X bases they are Gendarmes and if above X bases they are Horse? Thus when you take more mounted you end up with deeper formations as they are "hiding" the poorer equipped chaps at the back.

Unless I hear screams of protest I'll do something along these lines in the next draft on Thursday.

[nikgaukroger]

Early Reiters

Basically it seems there were two lots, those with two pistols and those equipped with spears (and usually only one pistol). Unsurprisingly the 2nd category was more common at first slowly dropping of in favour of the 1st.
Generally it seems Reiters of this period preferred to use their pistols from a distance either riding off to reload or closing to melee after discharging them.
The 1st category probably tended to ride off and reload, but if charged sometimes reserved the 2nd pistol for later use (they do not seem to have used it just before impact though).
The spear armed category was more likely to charge after discharging their pistol. I've not come upon anything suggesting Reiters armed only with a single pistol ever preserving them for impact/melee at this time. (Though I'm sure if one searches diligently enough a contradicting example can be found.)

Hmm, the spear armed ones are sounding rather like Pistol, Light Lancers, Swordsmen

If we wish to avoid triple armed mutants I guess we really have to say that although they were more likely to charge they were still primarily shooters and thus we don't give them an Impact capability - just like ghilman

[Ghaznavid]

Hmm, the spear armed ones are sounding rather like Pistol, Light Lancers, Swordsmen

If we wish to avoid triple armed mutants I guess we really have to say that although they were more likely to charge they were still primarily shooters and thus we don't give them an Impact capability - just like ghilman

That was pretty much my thinking in classing them. The only potential problem with it that I can see is this bit in from the Glossary of Combat Capabilities in the rules that I just found (while looking for Bow*): "... and others light lancers capability, which includes cavalry using a spear as a primary weapon such as early reiters."

[Ghaznavid]

The Horse solution is the one I would favour - it was certainly how deeper formations were envisioned during the rule writing and how the French catholic gendarmes post 1562 are depicted when they started to use formations of a similar depth to the reiters.

From what Karsten has written it should be an option and not compulsory - however, as he suggests it is inked to army size I wonder if the best approach is to have it that if there are up to X bases they are Gendarmes and if above X bases they are Horse? Thus when you take more mounted you end up with deeper formations as they are "hiding" the poorer equipped chaps at the back.

Unless I hear screams of protest I'll do something along these lines in the next draft on Thursday.

Sounds ok, just remember the proportion should be higher in the allies list.
Actually it might be sufficient to just reclass the current "Poorly equipped Men-At-Arms" and otherwise leave the conditions as is in regard to them. Unless you want all MAA in deep formations at a certain army size (that might or might not apply to the German states list, but will not apply to the imperial list as most of the Gendarmes in that would actually be from the Ordonnance Companies).

Mentioning the Ordonnances, having recently read Duncans TNE DBM list proposal for the late Burgundians/Low Countries under Max I wonder if it might be justified to include some Ordonnance archers after all. I initially left them out as I couldn't ascertain that they would still operate as separate bodies or indeed appear in noteworthy numbers at all. He seems to believe so though. Since I'm always happy to use an 'in dubio pro reo' approach ...

[nikgaukroger]

That was pretty much my thinking in classing them. The only potential problem with it that I can see is this bit in from the Glossary of Combat Capabilities in the rules that I just found (while looking for Bow*): "... and others light lancers capability, which includes cavalry using a spear as a primary weapon such as early reiters."

I think we can live with that to be honest - we can just say that on reflection, and further research, when we came to the lists we had a slight change of mind

[nikgaukroger]

Sounds ok, just remember the proportion should be higher in the allies list.
Actually it might be sufficient to just reclass the current "Poorly equipped Men-At-Arms" and otherwise leave the conditions as is in regard to them. Unless you want all MAA in deep formations at a certain army size (that might or might not apply to the German states list, but will not apply to the imperial list as most of the Gendarmes in that would actually be from the Ordonnance Companies).

So if I have got this right you are saying that in the Max Imp list the "proper" gendarmes should not be allowed/made to use deep formations (as Horse) and so should always be Gendarmes.

The "poorly equipped" types in the Max Imp could have a Horse option if in larger numbers.

For the German states list it is probably OK for all gendarmes whether fully or poorly equipped to have a deep formation as Horse option?

Mentioning the Ordonnances, having recently read Duncans TNE DBM list proposal for the late Burgundians/Low Countries under Max I wonder if it might be justified to include some Ordonnance archers after all. I initially left them out as I couldn't ascertain that they would still operate as separate bodies or indeed appear in noteworthy numbers at all. He seems to believe so though. Since I'm always happy to use an 'in dubio pro reo' approach ...

I'll have a look at it and see what he said - also on the DBMM list to see if anything has been mentioned there as Book 4 is (allegedly) being looked at.

[Ghaznavid]

So if I have got this right you are saying that in the Max Imp list the "proper" gendarmes should not be allowed/made to use deep formations (as Horse) and so should always be Gendarmes.

The "poorly equipped" types in the Max Imp could have a Horse option if in larger numbers.

For the German states list it is probably OK for all gendarmes whether fully or poorly equipped to have a deep formation as Horse option?

For the Imperials, yes for the Gendarmes but make the poorly equipped MAA Horse only (it's pretty much these guys that those remarks about poor and clumsy German MAA come from).

For the German States, make the poorly equipped horse only as well and add the option for all.

I'll have a look at it and see what he said - also on the DBMM list to see if anything has been mentioned there as Book 4 is (allegedly) being looked at.

Right, but all I remember from there is something about Ordonnance Hammerman and how many mauls a mule can carry, or was that AncMed?

[nikgaukroger]

Should the German States list have Landsknecht Verlorene Haufen like the Maximilian list?

[nikgaukroger]

Also I see that Richard has asked if there should be Poor militia shooters in the German States list which I assume would also apply to the Maximilian Imperial.

[Ghaznavid]

Should the German States list have Landsknecht Verlorene Haufen like the Maximilian list?

I've been uncertain about that, but just found a description about the battle of Sievershausen that not only mentions an Verlorene Haufen advance guard but also claims it to be standard tactic at that time. I'm still not sure about the standard tactic, but it seems inclusion of Verlorene Haufen for the German States list is justified.

Also I see that Richard has asked if there should be Poor militia shooters in the German States list which I assume would also apply to the Maximilian Imperial.

Difficult one, I would say if you feel like it, include at least it for the Crossbows, not so sure firearm equipped troops should be at least not before before 1530 or so. They seem to have been kinda decent at least at the start.


Other points:
Gendarmes:
4-12 Fully armoured Gendarmes
and 8-12 Heavily Armoured Horse
So there is no way to create an army with no more then 8 Gendarmes and accordingly you effectively included a 6 base minima for poorly equipped gendarmes.
I also think it would be realistic to allow for the Heavily armoured horse gendarmes and the poorly eqipped ones to be 1/2 and 1/2 of the same BG (I actually think it should be mandatory if the poorly eqipped MAA are mandatory).

While doing the Blurp for the Daneish Peasant war I also noticed I've forgotten to allow for armies of single city states (like the Lübeck army that intervened in Denmark) or minor city leagues/alliances that did not (unlike the larger city leagues of that day) include knight leagues or powerful nobles to supply it with mounted.
In effect the Gendarmes line(s) need an * stating something like this:
* Minima apply only if any Gendarmes or less then 4 poorly equipped MAA or more then 8 poorly equipped MAA are fielded.

[rbodleyscott]

Other points:
Gendarmes:
4-12 Fully armoured Gendarmes
and 8-12 Heavily Armoured Horse
So there is no way to create an army with no more then 8 Gendarmes and accordingly you effectively included a 6 base minima for poorly equipped gendarmes.
I also think it would be realistic to allow for the Heavily armoured horse gendarmes and the poorly eqipped ones to be 1/2 and 1/2 of the same BG (I actually think it should be mandatory if the poorly eqipped MAA are mandatory).

While doing the Blurp for the Daneish Peasant war I also noticed I've forgotten to allow for armies of single city states (like the Lübeck army that intervened in Denmark) or minor city leagues/alliances that did not (unlike the larger city leagues of that day) include knight leagues or powerful nobles to supply it with mounted.
In effect the Gendarmes line(s) need an * stating something like this:
* Minima apply only if any Gendarmes or less then 4 poorly equipped MAA or more then 8 poorly equipped MAA are fielded.

When considering this, an additional point is that if the other list minima are to stand, you only have 136 points to play with for the gendarme and poorly equipped men-at-arms minima - including any arising from the special instructions.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't understand why Berittene Hakenbüchsen-schützen can be Cavalry at any date, but only Horse before 1509.

Should they really be Cavalry rather than Horse after 1509?

Shouldn't it be the other way round? (Cavalry only before 1509, horse at any date)