Slitherine

Triggered in part by the Saxon / Polish combination, I would like to request a change to the support rules so that a BG can only support / be supported by a unit of it's own contingent. I think this will bring better balance to the game.

timmy1 wrote:Triggered in part by the Saxon / Polish combination, I would like to request a change to the support rules so that a BG can only support / be supported by a unit of it's own contingent. I think this will bring better balance to the game.

I think you'll need more explanation of why an allied BG is unable to provide support. What makes this unbalancing?

Certainly.

Support is about the morale effect of trusting that your back is covered while you move/fight forwards and the warm cozy feeling that comes from knowing you are not alone. I don't believe that most of the allies presnted here trusted each other that much, certainly not Saxons and Poles. I doubt that the Muscovites at Klushino trusted their allies the Swedes (with justification as it turns out).

Allowing troops of an ally to provide support provides a capability that I do not believe to be historically justified in this period. The Saxon list can hide the rubbish in Polish list as support troops and free filler. Not how I read allies being used and deployed in period.

timmy1 wrote:Certainly.

Support is about the morale effect of trusting that your back is covered while you move/fight forwards and the warm cozy feeling that comes from knowing you are not alone. I don't believe that most of the allies presnted here trusted each other that much, certainly not Saxons and Poles. I doubt that the Muscovites at Klushino trusted their allies the Swedes (with justification as it turns out).

Allowing troops of an ally to provide support provides a capability that I do not believe to be historically justified in this period. The Saxon list can hide the rubbish in Polish list as support troops and free filler. Not how I read allies being used and deployed in period.

Sort of depends on the ally, no? Not all allies are necessarily untrustworthy. We'd have to identify allies as trustworthy or not to make sense.

Also, I'd like to know what makes the current rule "unbalancing". Afterall an army without allies can have every BG support another. Why does allowing an allied BG to do so make it "unbalanced"? It would seem to me that the proposal would be make armies with allies inferior to ones without.

Correct, which they are not today. Each army has pluses and minuses. Some where you combine two allies removes the weakness each has. I can think of 2 armies that might come to dominate unhistorically by clever choice of allies. Time will tell if I am right.

Disagree with you 100% Timmy, (Ok I would I guess) there is nothing wrong with allies supporting other troops, did you disagree with it in Fog a&m ?

I am not convinced on this period there were so many untrustworthy alllies on the battlefield.

Perhaps as many as troops that didn't trust each other.

Just don't think its a big deal

I agree, this does not seem to be a biggie.

These trust issues you mention may have existed at a higher officer level but I'm pretty sure the normal joe just sees another regiment which is on his side.

cheers
Jim

I don't think this is necessary either. Using allies adds its own restrictions in terms of control and (sensible) deployment so I don't think we need to add more complexity. I certainly think that reliable/unreliable allies would be step too far.