XVIII Century battles and FOG

[Adraeth]

I really like the battles of XVIII century like those of Austrian succession or Spanish succession.

Do you think the most suited set of rules for those battles is FOG Renaissance or the incoming Napoleonic ruleset?

There is a gap, i believe, between the renaissance and napoleonic in FOG and i am trying to understand where i can put "Malburian" (and Eugene de Savoy) warfare.

Thanks in advance

[rbodleyscott]

I really like the battles of XVIII century like those of Austrian succession or Spanish succession.

Do you think the most suited set of rules for those battles is FOG Renaissance or the incoming Napoleonic ruleset?

There is a gap, i believe, between the renaissance and napoleonic in FOG and i am trying to understand where i can put "Malburian" (and Eugene de Savoy) warfare.

Thanks in advance

The short answer is that neither set of rules is designed for the period. However, I suspect that the Napoleonic period had enough significant differences to make it less suitable than FOGR at least for the WotSS. You might need some house rules if the interactions don't seem quite right.

[SirGarnet]

For the War of the Spanish Succession. I think it would be FOGR rather than whatever FOGN turns out to be.

However, FOGR cuts off shortly before 1700 and the WSS is specifically out of warranty, so the rules can't be held responsible for broken units, tactical malfunctions, or formation errors.

FOGR infantry fight two bases deep, which can be taken as representing formations of 6 or more ranks. The linear formations of the mid-18th century should I think be represented by battle groups one base deep, representing 3 ranks of men. I accept the argument that being able to dispense with the pike allowed shallower formations with more efficient use of firepower, but that it was an evolutionary transition over decades.

This transitional process was at work during the War of the League of Augsburg through the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and beyond, with reduction of rank depth both officially and unofficially, smaller intervals between ranks, as well as improved drill, but it was not a uniform changeover at a single point and there are debates over exactly what happened when in which army.

This process is distinct from and a successor to the evolutionary process around the interplay of pike and shot during the 16th and 17th centuries, which ended with the pike being dispensed with altogether. A significant portion of the thickness of the FOGR rules is devoted to rules representing that interplay. I think it was a wise choice not to attempt to tack on a set of rules addressing the fresh issues presented by the interesting nuances of the Marlburian period.

This said, I think you could use FOGR for the WSS with improvised house rules based on your appreciation of the period and suitable playtesting.





.

[Adraeth]

I will take a look on FOG renaissance and the pike-muskets question as debated by MikeK.

Indeed the Great War of the North and even the ideas ofthe Marechal Saxe give to the pike a strong role; so i think the FOGR can be a good starting point to think about XVIII warfare in Field of Glory.

[Rekila]

For the eighteen century, it should be FOGR. As you have there almost all you need (e.g. Regimental gun marker). We have already played two games of SYW using FOGR and enjoy both a lot. As our infantry units were of 10/12 figures (i.e 3bases) we brigaded them in pairs to make BGs as it was made historically by the Prussians for example. Something similar to Hastati/Princeps BGs. We make no change in the rules, and the games go on very smoothly. It’s truth that some changes may be necessary from a purist point of view. The cost of bayonets for light foot seems excessive for example. But for informal play the rules as they are works well.