Slitherine

What is the benefit of being a foot unit entirely in an enclosed field if you are not pike or shot? The rules clearly state they count as "protected." What does that mean since all the POA's say protected shot or protected pike? Why amend the rules to specifically allow all foot to be protected in certain terrain if it conveys NO benefit. I would appreciate it if someone could explain what the benefit is for the protected status. Hoping to hide my English Bowmen in some enclosed fields.

I think there is a bit that is not huge. But if memory serves it is some minor interaction that prevents mounted from blitzing through terrain.

Impact POAS:

3rd one...pike or protected shot, if not charging...+ vs. any mounted

11th...pistols...+ unless against...steady...protected shot


Melee POAS:

1st...pike or protected shot...+ vs any mounted

There are others besides what I have listed as well. Being classed as protected makes you safer and gives you advantages.


Ooopps...I see you knew this.

hazelbark wrote:I think there is a bit that is not huge. But if memory serves it is some minor interaction that prevents mounted from blitzing through terrain.

Since Enclosed fields are Rough ground, I don't think mounted troops would be blitzing into/through. So if I have a unit of longbow and a unit of arquebus both entirely in an enclosed field, both are protected, but only the arquebus get a POA in combat. So what do the "Protected" bowmen get that is not just the effect of being in any rough ground?

Blathergut wrote:Impact POAS:

3rd one...pike or protected shot, if not charging...+ vs. any mounted

11th...pistols...+ unless against...steady...protected shot


Melee POAS:

1st...pike or protected shot...+ vs any mounted

There are others besides what I have listed as well. Being classed as protected makes you safer and gives you advantages.


Ooopps...I see you knew this.

exactly, everything is shot or pike, what about other "protected foot?"

It just keeps the wording simple. There would not be much point in the rules saying "foot in enclosed fields count Protected except for those who would not get any benefit from being Protected", would there?

As to why they don't get a benefit, well, we made a conscious design decision that the rules would favour the new Renaissance technology and that obsolete troop types would get short shrift - and certainly nothing that increased rules complexity in any way.

If anything the rules allow obsolete types more chance in the game than is historically justified, whatever logic might tell us. In the 16th century there was still debate over which was better, the longbow or the arquebus. The theory all favoured the longbow, but in practice the arquebus ruled - and longbowmen died out. There are many reasons for this, but they can be abstracted out in the rules by making as sure as possible that we don't over-rate the actual (rather than theoretical) capabilities of obsolete types.

If anything the rules allow obsolete types more chance in the game than is historically justified, whatever logic might tell us. In the 16th century there was still debate over which was better, the longbow or the arquebus. The theory all favoured the longbow, but in practice the arquebus ruled - and longbowmen died out. There are many reasons for this, but they can be abstracted out in the rules by making as sure as possible that we don't over-rate the actual (rather than theoretical) capabilities of obsolete types.

Fair enough Richard, but then why do swordsmen without firearm not count sword POA against an opposing musket armed BG in an enclosed field? Which technology is obsolete in this scenario? Even worse, if the musketeers are fortunate enough to have swords, they will provide a + against the hapless swordsmen!

Kevin

Jeff will have his Colonial Portuguese armed with sword & hedge trimmer for his next game just in case......

viperofmilan wrote:

If anything the rules allow obsolete types more chance in the game than is historically justified, whatever logic might tell us. In the 16th century there was still debate over which was better, the longbow or the arquebus. The theory all favoured the longbow, but in practice the arquebus ruled - and longbowmen died out. There are many reasons for this, but they can be abstracted out in the rules by making as sure as possible that we don't over-rate the actual (rather than theoretical) capabilities of obsolete types.

Fair enough Richard, but then why do swordsmen without firearm not count sword POA against an opposing musket armed BG in an enclosed field? Which technology is obsolete in this scenario?

Shot in enclosed fields are assumed to be defending hedges or other field boundaries - hard for the swordsmen to get at them.

Even worse, if the musketeers are fortunate enough to have swords, they will provide a + against the hapless swordsmen!

Seems a bit harsh at first sight, but which would you rather have in a situation of fighting across a hedgerow/field wall - sword alone or sword + musket. I cannot see any good reason why the latter should not have an advantage, can you?

Shot in enclosed fields are assumed to be defending hedges or other field boundaries - hard for the swordsmen to get at them.

Why do you assume the swordsmen are attacking in this situation? What if, as usually happens in fact because of the skewed POAs, the sword-armed musketeers charge into the swordsmen in the enclosed field? Won't be any easier for the fellows lugging a heavey musket in one hand and a sword in the other to fight across a hedge than it is for the light-footed gents trained to use their swords. And after a few, sporadic shots, or at best a single ragged volley, the musketeers will not be contributing any more actual shooting to the melee. Still haven't heard a convincing argument.

Kevin

viperofmilan wrote:

Shot in enclosed fields are assumed to be defending hedges or other field boundaries - hard for the swordsmen to get at them.

Why do you assume the swordsmen are attacking in this situation? What if, as usually happens in fact because of the skewed POAs, the sword-armed musketeers charge into the swordsmen in the enclosed field? Won't be any easier for the fellows lugging a heavey musket in one hand and a sword in the other to fight across a hedge than it is for the light-footed gents trained to use their swords. And after a few, sporadic shots, or at best a single ragged volley, the musketeers will not be contributing any more actual shooting to the melee. Still haven't heard a convincing argument.

Kevin

There is a certain level of abstraction. The designers are happy with the logic. YMMV.

Issue - Protected foot in late pike and shot battle group ?

Another question on protected foot if I may. Late pike and shot battlegroups (1 pike/5 shot) have the pike element in the rear of the unit as per the diagram on page 33 and bullet point 2. Yet the guidance on protection for shot(page 125) says " ....occurs when a file of shot has an adjacent file of the same battlegroup with a front rank of pike." The consequence of this I think is that the shot of this type of battle group is therefore unprotected!

This formation may be able to bring more firepower to bear compared to the previous 2/4 pike shot units, but it is very weak versus mounted troops.

Is that the intention? Or have I missed/ got something wrong, which is quite possible?


Many thanks

Russ

With the 5+1 later pike and shot your have the option of moving the pike to the front when you enter close combat, so you can have the same benefit as other p+s units.

Brilliant ! I thought there must be something, do you know whereabouts that is in the rules by any chance?

my thanks

Russ

Sorry, I'm awy from home at the moment. I'll check it out in a few dys if nobody else provides a reference.

I asked the very same question - it is covered on Page 75 - first paragraph.

Page 75.

Many thanks to all, there it is in plain sight.

Russ