Veteran status?

[Simpleton]

It seems to me lots of armies of a native or colonial nature have superior troops, while other armies are left without this option at all. For example the Hawaiian army can have 32 elements of superior troops, while Henry VIII invasion of France, well funded with the best troops money could buy, and with veteran troops from wars in Scotland, Ireland, and the continent have 0 elements! I think a re-evaluation needs to be done of who is superior and who isn't should take place. That's not to say my own Early Tudors should also be reviewed. up to 16 stands of dismounted men at arms/Yeoman of the guards seems ok for Flodden, but not for other campaigns, so maybe they should be troops for a Scottish special campaign. However allowing 1/3rd of the Good militia archers and Billmen to be superior as "veterans" would be appropriate with none of the men at arms/Yeoman troops for other campaigns. I'm sure other armies could do with a review as well in light of the lavish numbers of superior troops poping up in various lists. The Irish in TaT can have 40 superior armored Hvy Wpn and 36 elements of armored Lt Horse Lancers, this seems very disproportionate. I would like to know what others think and maybe we could all work together for an eventual redo of the army books some day in the future.

[viperofmilan]

Bob,

You are absolutely correct on all points. That said, I can predict with great confidence that absoltuely nothing will be done about it. The approach to composing army lists are wildly and widely divergent and inconsistent. In many cases - as IMHO with virtually all the new world and many asian armies - lists have bee wildly inflated in order to make these lists competitive against the lists of more conventionally civilized nations. In others - can anyone say border rievers? - lists have been created for "armies" that IMO never even existed.

There is little that can be done about it - as witness the recent epic thread on the Colonial Portuguese. Credit is due to the authors and their list writers for making the effort, and on such a broad scale. Whatever its faults, RBS and company have produced in FoG the best and most enjoyable set of rules I have had the pleasure to play in 20 years. You can have a fun game even if some of the lists are highly questionable, and others are rubbish. If ahistorical or inaccurate lists really offend us that much, we can always eschew the tournament scene and do scenarios using what are in our opinion more historical lists among ourselves.

Kevin

Kevin

[hazelbark]

The other piece is some of those armies need superior status to survive.

If i was to run a campaign I would start out giving Veteran status a +1 on the CT for the battle not actual superior status.

Lastly I thin you find that it base # per BG that is as important if not more.

A 8 base pike and shot average can do rather nicely versus a 6 base pike and shot superior.

[marshalney2000]

I think you will find that the English forces who won at Solway Moss consisted totally of Border Reivers.
John

[Scrumpy]

Superior & Elite troops just knew to hide behind the bigger rocks when the shooting started...

[jefritrout]

I actually went through all the army lists and calculated who was allowed how many superiors and elites.
As mentioned in the Colonial Portuguese discussion, I found it quite odd who was assigned superior and more interesting who was not. The one that jumps out is the Peasant Revolt - Hungarian option that can have 180 Superior troops. Doesn't seem too peasanty (sic).

In South America the countries that were conquered relatively quickly get superiors, but the natives that remained unconquered until the 1880's (Machupe) and some into the 20th Century - (Tupi) only get average. The Portuguese who conquered a rather large empire get no superiors, but the people the conquered all have at least 12 (in most cases 24) superiors. I do not know the rational behind the grading, but at this point I am not worried about it. I will just play the game (hopefully with the Historical Portuguese list) as it comes. I enjoy playing.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Can't speak for the list writers (of course), but my understanding is that the European armies that mostly get average troops were not renowned in the period for especial tenacity or bravery. This would apply to the English army of the 16th century (remember how much worry there was that the Armada would actually put tercios on the ground), for instance.

On the other hand, in Europe there are also armies that had troops famed for their extreme tenacity or desperate courage, like the Army of Flanders and the pre-Bicocca Swiss. Note that these armies have fairly large numbers of Elite troops. Even an army like the Catholic League can have many superior troops to represent the famous elan of Tilly's veterans.

Many of the pre-Columbian American armies had a very tight social hierarchy and so to represent that there are social elites who are superior. Equally, in peasant revolts the peasants knew they (and their families) would be slaughtered without the least remorse if they were defeated in battle, and in fact were often driven to revolt in the first place by oppression that was impossible to bear, or by a religious frenzy that would bring on fanaticism. So the ratings make sense to me.

Of course, as a manufacturer of both Chichimecs AND Mapuche (the latter being cast now!), I would prefer to see them as more highly rated. As Jeff points out, both of these peoples genuinely frightened the Spanish with their ferocity, but they either have a small force of Superior troops (Chichimecs) or not at all (Mapuche, who were not conquered until the Chileans got machine guns in the 1880s!). But by the same token I understand that the list writers were trying to achieve an overall effect with the morale categories, and from the success of the game I can only surmise that they knew what they were doing. So I'm good.

[Delbruck]

The colonization of North America must have been regarded as an infestation rather than a conquest. English, French, and Dutch get no superior troops or close combat weapons to speak of. The Eastern Woodlands peoples can be superior, impact, swordsmen. I suppose even if the Indians had ever managed to put togehter an army of 1000 men it would would hardly have made a dent against a million European settlers.

[Simpleton]

Can't speak for the list writers (of course), but my understanding is that the European armies that mostly get average troops were not renowned in the period for especial tenacity or bravery. This would apply to the English army of the 16th century (remember how much worry there was that the Armada would actually put tercios on the ground), for instance.

The problem is that FOG (both AM and R) combine in one category: Quality, two things weapon skill and morale. Are veteran Hawaiian Hvy Weapon troops really better than Good English Billmen Militia who would have a metal tipped weapon and some kind of jack or corselet protection?

Elizabeth's concern was that the Spanish wanted to land the Duke of Parma's army on her shore, a very experienced force with many veteran officers. Plus she couldn't be sure of the reaction of her Catholic subjects, some of whom may have joined the Spanish against her.

There has been some discussion that in order to make some of the less played native lists viable for tournament play they have been given more superior troops than their performance rates. Although I think in a Hawaiian vs Hawaiian or Aztec vs Mayan etc these gradations are much more viable.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Are veteran Hawaiian Hvy Weapon troops really better than Good English Billmen Militia who would have a metal tipped weapon and some kind of jack or corselet protection?

Ahistorical opponents so not possible to tell, and pitting them against each other is conjecture, so anyone's guess, including the rules writers', is as good as any. In terms of overall quality, I would think that the elite natives would be more reliable and tenacious troopers than European militiamen though, yes.

Some native weapons types are actually better against unarmoured opponents than European weapons. For instance Hawaiians often used shark's teeth on the edges of their weapons, and the serrated edges of those are incredibly sharp. The kind of granularity that requires metal weapons being better against hard targets and native weapons being better against unarmoured was, it seems, beyond what the rules writers wanted to accomplish in a massed battle system. I don't have any argument with that personally.

[hazelbark]

There has been some discussion that in order to make some of the less played native lists viable for tournament play they have been given more superior troops than their performance rates.

Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

[timmy1]

I think that the Veteran status of the English troops in Tudor armies can best be seen by the fact that in 1513 Henry got hold of as many experienced mercs as he could as soon as he landed in Europe. You don't spend money you have not got on mercs if you have loads of quality veteran troops. The only English army between 1494 and 1603 AD that can be seen as 'modern' was the one that invaded Scotland at the very end of Henry's reign. Looking at it's list of famous victories against a not very united Scots armies we come up with... err, and umm.

Now I have the army and love it to bits but it's ain't no world beater historically... No Superior troops is a shame but I can't find the evidence to justify any.

[Simpleton]

Now I have the army and love it to bits but it's ain't no world beater historically... No Superior troops is a shame but I can't find the evidence to justify any.

I was just referring to the fact that Veteran Hawaiian are superior, yet none of the Retinue or Militia Billmen or Bowmen over a 50+ year history of wars, expeditions and suppression of results gets similar treatment.

[stork]

Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.[/quote]

An Aztec Army came in third at our turnament in Austin 6 to 8 stand superior are hard to get through

Kevin S

[johngl]

I think that the Veteran status of the English troops in Tudor armiescan best be seen by the fact that in 1513 Henry got hold of as many experienced mercs as he could as soon as he landed in Europe. You don't spend money you have not got on mercs if you have loads of quality veteran troops. The only English army between 1494 and 1603 AD that can be seen as 'modern' was the one that invaded Scotland at the very end of Henry's reign. Looking at it's list of famous victories against a not very united Scots armies we come up with... err, and umm.

Now I have the army and love it to bits but it's ain't no world beater historically... No Superior troops is a shame but I can't find the evidence to justify any.

Henry VIII hired great numbers of mercenaries for his 1513 and 1544 campaigns, true - why aren't at least some of them rated as Superior?

How about Mountjoy's army in 1600-1602? Many of the troops had been campaigning for years, some in the Low Countries where they were well thought of, and they won the decisive battles. No pitched battle against the Spaniards, unfortunately, but the English troops did contain them while beating the Irish with inferior numbers.

Pinkie was a pretty good victory, too.

Then there's the Restoration army, which has no Superior troops because the army fought no pitched battles (except Sedgemoor). Well, neither did many of the American "armies" (war parties, really), which are bristling with Superior troops.

This sort of thing does bother me... it seems that the DBM disease of boosting "exotic" armies (remember Makkan?) has infected FoGR.

[jefritrout]

Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Granted they aren't Brasilian, but I am looking forward to playing with the Machupe. Let's see if they get ridden down. I think it will be an interesting game.

[ravenflight]

An Aztec Army came in third at our turnament in Austin 6 to 8 stand superior are hard to get through Kevin S

My 6 pack (or 8 pack, can't remember now) Superior Buccaneers got ridden down big time.

I admit I could have done things a little better, but it is tough to be Medium Foot in the open against mounted.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

[Delbruck]

Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

Whether an army can do well in a competion has little to do with how accurate the army is historically.

The Eastern Woodlands warriors are rated very similiar to the highlanders in Later Jacobite Scotish list of 1689-90. Both are impact & sword warriors. The highlanders are musket* and the Indians can be 1/2 musket (so the highlanders have a little more firepower). Both can have superior warriors.

One can name battles that the highlanders displayed the behavior relected by the impact/sword classication (Battle of Killiecrankie). Are there any battles in which Eastern Woodlands warriors executed a simliar charge during this period?

[khurasan_miniatures]

Whether an army can do well in a competion has little to do with how accurate the army is historically.

Wasn't really the point of my comment of course -- I was responding to Dan's comment about viability.