RBS: Using FoGR for WSS

[shadowdragon]

Richard,

I'm interested in extending FoGR for use with the War of the Spanish Succession but I remember that sometime ago you mentioned that it wasn't appropriate to use FoGR for the WSS. However, since there's only a few years from the end of FoGR and the WSS it seems to me that it could be done with some house rules to modify FoGR.

I would just like to know what issues you thought were major ones for FoGR not being appropriate for the WSS.

I have quite a few WSS miniatures that I'm thinking of adding a pike base to the infantry units to make them useable for Duty and Glory. Right now the units are 4 bases of muskets, so I'd have to add 1 base of muskets and 1 base of pikes (e.g., for French, Dutch, British). If I was to extend FoGR one more base of muskets to replace the pikes would make the units the standard 6 base FoG BG of all muskets for the post-pike ere.

Any thoughts you have - or anyone else for that matter - would be appreciated.

*Note: Actually, Richard, you said they WOULD be appropriate. It just shows you how bad one's memory could be. I also noticed that one of the changes is the "move by divisions" from pike & musket era needs to be modified to one appropriate for the WSS. I also note that villages are important in many WSS battles, but often this is when the defenders have had a chance to prepare the village for defence, which could probably be accommodated by FF for villages in army lists.

viewtopic.php?t=17707

[rbodleyscott]

In addition to the above, I wonder whether the effect of bayonets va cavarly is good enough for WSS. But I don't know enough about WSS to say.

It might be that you would want to make bayonets behave like Protected in FOGR for WSS.

[shadowdragon]

In addition to the above, I wonder whether the effect of bayonets va cavarly is good enough for WSS. But I don't know enough about WSS to say.

It might be that you would want to make bayonets behave like Protected in FOGR for WSS.

Thanks. Clearly some testing is in order.

A couple of other issues that need checking are:

1) The introduction of fire by platoon vs the older fire by rotation
2) Shock cavalry tactics - cavalier isn't quite right but maybe superior determined horse will do it

[Delbruck]

In addition to the above, I wonder whether the effect of bayonets va cavarly is good enough for WSS. But I don't know enough about WSS to say.

It might be that you would want to make bayonets behave like Protected in FOGR for WSS.

Thanks. Clearly some testing is in order.

A couple of other issues that need checking are:

1) The introduction of fire by platoon vs the older fire by rotation
2) Shock cavalry tactics - cavalier isn't quite right but maybe superior determined horse will do it

If the intent is to make the allies superior in all arms to the Franco-Spanish than you can make some of the allied cavalry impact horse and continue to have the French foot as impact/musket* (without regt guns) and the allies musket with regt gun. Personally, I think this is excessive but most everything can be done with the army lists.

[shadowdragon]

If the intent is to make the allies superior in all arms to the Franco-Spanish than you can make some of the allied cavalry impact horse and continue to have the French foot as impact/musket* (without regt guns) and the allies musket with regt gun. Personally, I think this is excessive but most everything can be done with the army lists.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to assume that's the intent. The period saw the introduction tactics (that exploited improved equipment) that would become the norm for the 18th century. True some nations would have had a temporary advantage because they introduced the tactics but presumably other nations adopted the tactics because they made sense not because it made them Dutch, English, Danish or Prussian.

Somethings can indeed be done through army lists without an implications for the existing rules.

Somethings can be done with army lists and the rules but with an implied change in the definition of the capabilities. For example, perhaps musket* = fire by rotation while musket = fire by platoon. That might make sense with the rules since increasing the effectiveness for fire by platoon could result in combats resolved too quickly. I assume fire effectiveness in FoGR is designed to relatively reflect differences in capabilities but also with an eye to the number of turns to resolve combat. Having an improved musket+ capability would likely see BG evaporate. So I'm inclined to redefine the existing capabilities. However, that does mean that there's problem if one choose to play a WSS army against a TYW army since the capability definitions would be different.

Anyway, any modifications are for my use only. I would prefer to have minimal changes to the rules since large changes would likely break the rules. On the other hand, army lists are indeed one way to adapt the rules, but I do want to check that out first.

Note: Major French vs Allied battles were, in my view, close affairs. Typically the Allies were attacking the French in prepared positions, so I'd be looking for a combination of rules & army lists that would be balanced for these battles.

[shadowdragon]

I've spent a few days comparing with dedicated 18th century rules and looking up info on evolution of 18th century tactics. A few things I thought might be issues but a few things are requiring more pondering.

The objectives are that the game be balanced, looks good on the table and feels like an early 18th century battle. Compatibility with FoGR armies is a "nice to have" but is not required.

Some preliminary thoughts...

Movement by Division: This works well for the 18th century which continued to use a checker board formation. Second line battalions were arranged to cover the interval between two battalions in the 1st line - to provide rear support, maintain frontage as units took casualties and to aid a passage of lines. I see this rule as unchanged for the WSS and even well beyond.

Cavalry: Eventually cavalry move away from reliance on firepower to shock. For one cavalry have no hope of winning a firefight with infantry (due to not only the bayonet, but improved muskets and tactics exploiting these improvements) and, secondly, cavalry using firearms were at a disadvantage to cavalry using shock tactics (i.e., impact mounted / sword). So why bother with firearms. It's easy enough to represent WSS cavalry with the FoGR capabilities depending on whether a nation's cavalry still relied on firepower or had switched to shock tactics (i.e., as "determined horse" either with "impact mounted/sword" or "carbine or impact pistol/melee pistol").

Dragoons should now have an option of being deployed as traditional dragoons or as cavalry. As cavalry they don't fit the "horse" category (i.e., fighting in deeper formations than "determined horse"). So it would seem that if deployed as cavalry they'd be "determined horse" but they should be at a disadvantage to line cavalry in close combat. Options are to get this effect through using troop quality (but that has implications since troop quality is used by a number of rules) or through modifying the POA charts.

French Seven Years War tactics against infantry are interesting. Rather than have a whole cavalry line try to close with a steady infantry battalion in line, which would have seen extensive casualties to the cavalry, the French intended small groups of experienced troopers would lead the rest of the regiment / squadron, close rapidly with infantry, draw fire and, if the horses were close enough when hit they would, infuriated by pain, crash into the infantry. The follow on line of cavalry would exploit the gap. It didn't work too well since, in essence, it's describing a piecemeal attack. The one thing to note is that 18th cavalry were (sensibly) reluctant to close with a steady infantry battalion from the front. It was far better to go around the flank. However, in FoGR, while it's unwise for cavalry to charge infantry, it's probably still too easy.

So, cavalry vs cavalry is fine, but more thinking is required for including dragoons deployed as cavalry.

Artillery: Medium and heavy artillery, once deployed in FoGR are immobile. For the WSS this is probably by and large still the case. However, artillerymen have started to become professional soldiers and not civilian contractors. The WSS does see some redeployment of artillery during the battle. At the battle of Malplaquet Marlborough does bring up some artillery to to fire at the flank of the French line. I presume these are medium guns. I haven't found a reference to their calibre but I don't think they'd fit the FoGR "light artillery" category. It may be that these guns were kept limbered for that moment but I'm not sure that was the case. So, it's worth considering that medium artillery can limber again during a battle - requiring a CMT to do so. Whether the artillery of all or only some nations during the WSS can do this is another question that has to be decided.

Infantry: This is the one I thought would be easy and that I'd use "musket*" for troops using a 4-5 rank line and "musket" for troops using a 3 rank line. However, infantry using a 4-5 rank line should be just as effective per equivalent frontage as 3 rank troops, it's just that it takes more troops (more battalions) to deliver that effect. I got more perplexed when I looked more carefully at FoGR's assumptions. Although it's easily forgotten a FoGR infantry base has 3-5 ranks of troops and a double rank of bases 6-10 ranks. FoGR just squeezes in the late 17th century 4 rank infantry line with an assumption that a base could have just 2 ranks, but with 3 ranks lines a base now has to represent 1 to 2 ranks. In terms of a firepower, it was sometimes just 2 firing ranks maintaining fire as the front kneeling rank would sometimes serve a dual purpose of a "pikeman" (line of steady bayonets) and a reserve fire line (i.e., to fire in a single volley if needed). While from a point of view of using a WSS army against a TYW army the existing FoGR system wold probably work out as a points-balanced game but really it's two TYW armies that are fighting, it's just that one is in WSS uniforms. While the using the FoGR as is with "musket*" for a 4 rank line and "musket' for a 3 rank line another option is that a WSS infantry line in a single rank of bases should have the same firepower as a double rank of TYW musketeer bases (i.e., only 1 rank of a WSS 3 rank base can fire but has 2 dice per base). This would have one interesting effect which is that infantry in villages are now quite effective against infantry in the open. However, infantry BG in a single rank has two problems - it doesn't look as good on the table and it's a lot more difficult to manoeuvre (even if a 4 base BG in one rank) compared to 6 base BG in 2 ranks. However, really for the WSS infantry in 2 ranks of bases is just for visual effect. They should never be fighting in a single rank of bases which would represent perhaps just a single rank of infantry. Besides if I wanted to have WSS BG in a single rank of bases I could keep using the period rules I have. The job is getting the visual and combat effects balanced. Moving away from compatibility with FoGR one could have a 3 rank infantry BG in a double rank of bases with 1 dice per base in the first 2 ranks while a 4-5 rank infantry BG would have 1 dice per base in the front rank and 1 dice per 2 bases in the 2nd and 3rd ranks which would have a reasonable look and feel.

Shooting vs Close Combat: When using FoGR for the 18th century I think close combat is too easy to do. All the period rules I looked at make it difficult for enemy infantry or cavalry to charge a defending steady infantry battalion from the front. That's one thing I noticed from AAR's that include Duty and Glory armies, the fight ends up too quickly in close combat for WSS. For the right WSS feel the defending infantry should be disrupted prior to an effective charge. One can always argue that close combat includes close range firefights but that would mean looking at melee capabilities with a different eye. Some options are to give defending steady infantry a "salvo" against charging enemy infantry and "protected" status vs cavalry.

No decisions but lots to think about.

One thing this did make me realize is that Duty and Glory is just on the borderline for the FoGR rules. It's okay for historical scenario games if match ups are between contemporary armies. It's also okay for tournament play since in tournaments (at least coming at 1700 from gaming ancient and medieval warfare) we're used to an Iroquois army facing a TYW army on an equal points basis even though the Iroquois one represents maybe a one-tenth the size of army of the TYW army. Interestingly, wargaming seems to divide at 1700 (+/-). For later periods you don't see so many cases of games that, for example, match a 1939 army against a 1945 army - no matter how well the points are constructed.

[shadowdragon]

Forgot to include in the above list:

Interpenetration: There are references made to the "passage of lines". Some period rules don't allow interpenetration, some do with a cost and some include a formal "passage of lines" to bring a fresh line to take over one that's suffered casualties. It would seem reasonable that interpenetration should be more do-able with just 3 ranks compared to 6-10 rank in each BG. Perhaps one option is to allow a 2nd rank infantry BG to move through a gap of at least 1 (or 2 base widths?) in a 1st of infantry if they pass a CMT.

[deadtorius]

few thoughts
What if you gave all your cav swordsman capabilities except for dragoons acting as cavalry. It brings them down a POA in melee which makes them somewhat less effective and might cover your needs easily.

As for the infantry charging, what if you treated a steady line of infantry as if it were behind a FF. The attacking enemy would be forced to stop 1 MU out and take fire while steeling themselves for the charge into steady line troops. If the enemy is not steady then that would make it easier to get the troops to charge into the enemy ranks.

The artillery, my thought would have been galloper guns that were light guns mounted on special light frames that were pulled by I think a single horse and were more mobile, so could have been maneuvered onto a flank easily. Perhaps treat it as a light gun that moves the same as the HF, so not liking terrain but good and fast in the open.

Just some thoughts that would hopefully make it an easy conversion for you.

[shadowdragon]

few thoughts
What if you gave all your cav swordsman capabilities except for dragoons acting as cavalry. It brings them down a POA in melee which makes them somewhat less effective and might cover your needs easily.

As for the infantry charging, what if you treated a steady line of infantry as if it were behind a FF. The attacking enemy would be forced to stop 1 MU out and take fire while steeling themselves for the charge into steady line troops. If the enemy is not steady then that would make it easier to get the troops to charge into the enemy ranks.

The artillery, my thought would have been galloper guns that were light guns mounted on special light frames that were pulled by I think a single horse and were more mobile, so could have been maneuvered onto a flank easily. Perhaps treat it as a light gun that moves the same as the HF, so not liking terrain but good and fast in the open.

Just some thoughts that would hopefully make it an easy conversion for you.

Thanks. All good thoughts.

[deadtorius]

Glad I was able to help you with some ideas

[hazelbark]

Dragoons really fought as battle cavalry by the SYW. The whole dismounting to shoot from behind trees was gone from a real batlle. That may have existed in the skirmish fight, but you really don't have skirmishers in any sense of the term on the battlefield in the SYW. Even the Austrian Croats were often deployed in dense terrain to one flank. Honestly after Lobositz I am not sure they ever got that close again, even though they served with distinction there. The skimish war was more the "little war" occuring around supply lines and never amounted to large scale actions.

[shadowdragon]

Dragoons really fought as battle cavalry by the SYW. The whole dismounting to shoot from behind trees was gone from a real batlle. That may have existed in the skirmish fight, but you really don't have skirmishers in any sense of the term on the battlefield in the SYW. Even the Austrian Croats were often deployed in dense terrain to one flank. Honestly after Lobositz I am not sure they ever got that close again, even though they served with distinction there. The skimish war was more the "little war" occuring around supply lines and never amounted to large scale actions.

Absolutely. In the WSS a few Dragoons were dismounted but not all. I've got some experimental rules in mind

Experimental rule: A new category of "mounted dragoon" and a POA that determined horse (and cavaliers for that matter but not "horse") get a +1 POA if POA net out to zero or less for the determined horse / cavaliers otherwise (flank and rear attacks excepted). Weapons would be according to national variations. At the player's choice mounted dragoons can be dismounted and used as regular dragoons. However, I don't think any army lists for the WSS would allow the purchase of dragoons as dismounted dragoons....a consequence of the dragoon's own efforts to increase their legitimacy as proper cavalry.

Also, it would appear the infantry that set out in the WSS were very different than those that that are at the end of FOGR in Duty and Glory. In Duty and Glory, even by the end a substantial portion are still using matchlocks and the common bayonet is the socket bayonet. By the start of the WSS infantry has converted to the flintlock (which is also an improved capability* over early 17th century versions) with the socket/ring bayonet that allows the infantryman to simultaneously be a pikeman and a musketeer.

*Capability is more than just the equipment it's also the training, logistics, tactics, etc. So an improved flintlock capability includes proper training, tactics to exploit the improved weapon, paper cartridges, steel ramrods, etc.

Experimental rule: WSS infantry with the improved flintlock/bayonet are treated as PROTECTED. I'm not sure cavalry should still get protection for the WSS but I'm not sure why not, so I'll leave it as is for the moment.

Experimental rule: To represent the WSS infantry would be 2 dice per front rank base (I decided to ignore the 4 rank vs the 3 rank differences). Infantry BG would be 4 or 6 bases. Players would have the choice of spreading out or remaining 2 ranks deep to replace losses or to provide resistance for close combat (no changes there). Also, to represent the fact that flintlocks can deliver consistent volleys, a +1 Impact POA for defending STEADY improved musketeers vs other foot - to give an incentive for a firefight to disrupt the enemy line. One advantage is some incentive to keep generals out of close combat as maintaining a steady firing line becomes more important. Another advantage is that villages become more important as WSS infantry can exploit its advantages (village provides cover but only the first rank fires).

Experimental rule: For passage of lines: Pass a CMT for infantry BG (no deeper than 2 ranks) to pass through a gap that's no narrower than 1 base less than width of BG. I haven't decided on the mechanics yet but other than possibly making room infantry BG passed through cannot move. This is intended to encourage two lines of infantry BG. The first to disrupt the enemy and take casualties and the 2nd to move through to eventually charge and break the enemy. No changes to interpenetration otherwise.

No changes to artillery. Assume Marlborough's use of artillery at Malplaquet is either light artillery (deadtorius's suggestion) or a reserve of artillery that had remained limbered....or just use a special scenario rule. Mostly medium and heavy artillery seem to remain in place once deployed.

I don't know about points yet. I'm not doing this for anything like a competition game but sometimes points are useful when setting up a scenario game.

[shadowdragon]

Experimental rule: A new category of "mounted dragoon" and a POA that determined horse (and cavaliers for that matter but not "horse") get a +1 POA if POA net out to zero or less for the determined horse / cavaliers otherwise (flank and rear attacks excepted). Weapons would be according to national variations. At the player's choice mounted dragoons can be dismounted and used as regular dragoons. However, I don't think any army lists for the WSS would allow the purchase of dragoons as dismounted dragoons....a consequence of the dragoon's own efforts to increase their legitimacy as proper cavalry.

Also, it would appear the infantry that set out in the WSS were very different than those that that are at the end of FOGR in Duty and Glory. In Duty and Glory, even by the end a substantial portion are still using matchlocks and the common bayonet is the socket bayonet. By the start of the WSS infantry has converted to the flintlock (which is also an improved capability* over early 17th century versions) with the socket/ring bayonet that allows the infantryman to simultaneously be a pikeman and a musketeer.

*Capability is more than just the equipment it's also the training, logistics, tactics, etc. So an improved flintlock capability includes proper training, tactics to exploit the improved weapon, paper cartridges, steel ramrods, etc.

Experimental rule: WSS infantry with the improved flintlock/bayonet are treated as PROTECTED. I'm not sure cavalry should still get protection for the WSS but I'm not sure why not, so I'll leave it as is for the moment.

Experimental rule: To represent the WSS infantry would be 2 dice per front rank base (I decided to ignore the 4 rank vs the 3 rank differences). Infantry BG would be 4 or 6 bases. Players would have the choice of spreading out or remaining 2 ranks deep to replace losses or to provide resistance for close combat (no changes there). Also, to represent the fact that flintlocks can deliver consistent volleys, a +1 Impact POA for defending STEADY improved musketeers vs other foot - to give an incentive for a firefight to disrupt the enemy line. One advantage is some incentive to keep generals out of close combat as maintaining a steady firing line becomes more important. Another advantage is that villages become more important as WSS infantry can exploit its advantages (village provides cover but only the first rank fires).

Experimental rule: For passage of lines: Pass a CMT for infantry BG (no deeper than 2 ranks) to pass through a gap that's no narrower than 1 base less than width of BG. I haven't decided on the mechanics yet but other than possibly making room infantry BG passed through cannot move. This is intended to encourage two lines of infantry BG. The first to disrupt the enemy and take casualties and the 2nd to move through to eventually charge and break the enemy. No changes to interpenetration otherwise.

No changes to artillery. Assume Marlborough's use of artillery at Malplaquet is either light artillery (deadtorius's suggestion) or a reserve of artillery that had remained limbered....or just use a special scenario rule. Mostly medium and heavy artillery seem to remain in place once deployed.

I don't know about points yet. I'm not doing this for anything like a competition game but sometimes points are useful when setting up a scenario game.

After some play tests...

Dragoons: I've dropped a mounted dragoon vs line cavalry POA, dragoons as "battle cavalry" will a "determined horse". Generally I will grade them one lower than line cavalry (i.e., if a nation's cavalry are "superior or average" then I'll grade the dragoons as "average or poor").

Foot: I've dropped the shooting dice = 2 dice per 1st rank base and I'll go with the normal 1 dice per base in the first 2 ranks. It was okay in the middle of the battle line but it led to funny deployments on the flank - not surprisingly. It also upset the FoG game balance if BG deployed in thinner lines (e.g., 4 + 2 formation).

However, that probably leaves muskets in villages too vulnerable to opponents outside the village. An example will illustrate - with the normal FoGR rules, for a BG of 6 bases of muskets (in 2 lines) outside a village versus a similar BG in the village, the BG outside gets 6 dice hitting on 5 or 6 = 2 hits on average. The BG in the village, restricted to the same frontage as the BG outside, gets only 2 dice (disordered and only front rank firing) which hit on 4, 5 or 6 = 1 hit. It's hard to replicate WSS battles with a 2:1 fire exchange ratio per file in favour of musketeers outside a village. So, the restriction that only front ranks fire in a village will be dropped for WSS infantry. In the example, the BG in the village gets 4 dice (disordered) hitting on 4, 5 or 6 = 2 hits, which evens up the fire exchange, but overall the fire effectiveness is less than in the open. This probably makes sense given that the front rank base for earlier FoGR musketeers has more ranks than 2 ranks of WSS bases. The firing restrictions for woods should still apply.

So, for FoG:WSS:
Shooting dice is 1 dice per base in first 2 ranks - no change from FoGR.
Muskets in villages can fire with the first 2 ranks of bases.*
Defending steady muskets get the "salvo" impact POA.
Muskets are treated as PROTECTED unless fragmented or severely disordered.
Musket BG can move through a gap that's less than the width of the BG but not more than 1 base width less if they pass a CMT.**

* One options might be that this is only true for "villages prepared for defence", which would have to be paid for as field fortifications.

** I need more testing to see if this will be needed. The WSS should have the feel of advance, fire, advance, fire, etc. to wear down the enemy line and then have fresh troops assault the enemy, which is different than early FoG games of rush into close combat.

Anyway, I'm re-basing my WSS foot in a way that will allow playing Duty and Glory armies (add a pike base), FoGR extended to WSS or Principles of War (the existing basing is for PoW).... and it only requires another 300-400 figures.

[shadowdragon]

Some discussion on TMP (after action report with a link to loads of great pictures) on how a WSS wargame battle should unfold - at least in the views of present day wargamers.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=242315

[shadowdragon]

Discussion on TMP about the "passage of lines".

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=217229


Note the 24 Sept 2011 post by "1968billsfan" which provides a description of how a 2nd line of battalions replaced a 1st line of battalions. Clearly there must be space between battalions in a line but this space is less than a battalion in line, so both the 1st and 2nd line battalions must contract (i.e., the 1st line battalions each pull back the companies on the ends of the line while the 2nd rank battalions form in double column) so that the 2nd line can pass through the first line. Once the passage is completed the former 2nd rank battalions deploy into line.