Swedish troop issues

[nikgaukroger]

IMO currently there is an incentive for Swedish brigades to stand off at long range and engage in a fire fight rather than close and charge in (which is what we want the incentive to be) - I believe this is due to them counting as Armoured at long range to other firearms who then need a 5 to hit whereas the Swedes will need a 4 against other pike & shot types.

I'd change the brigade rules and remove the counting as armoured at long range part and assume any benefit of the pikemen being armoured and leading are abstracted into the 7th base the formation gets (which itself is a significant benefit).

[kevinj]

IMO currently there is an incentive for Swedish brigades to stand off at long range and engage in a fire fight rather than close and charge in (which is what we want the incentive to be) - I believe this is due to them counting as Armoured at long range to other firearms who then need a 5 to hit whereas the Swedes will need a 4 against other pike & shot types.

I agree, but I think it's also down to Salvo and (Musket*) having he same shooting effect at long range as normal Musket troops, a situation that is only made worse by the addition of Regimental Guns and, in the Swedish case, Commanded Shot with RGs. 3 Swedish Brigades, interspersed with Commanded Shot, all with RGs can shoot with 13 dice at long range on an 11 base frontage. 4 normal P+S BGs (2 Pike, 4 Musket) shoot back with 8 dice on a 12 base frontage, or 12 dice if they also have RGs. That's without the added armour benefits the Swedish Brigades get. The Swedes are slightly more expensive (239 to 212 pts for all Average with Armoured Pike and RGs) but are likely to make a big hole.

My suggestion would be to reduce the effectiveness of Salvo/Musket* at long range, possibly only allowing them to count RGs at effective range, in order to encourage the more combat inclined troops to close up.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think reducing the long range shooting would be the way to go. IMO Swedes and French should be able to engage in long range shooting just as effectively as any of their contemporaries but have the close combat incentives when they are in the "red zone" - certainly that would be my reading of the history and, again IMO, would give the best in game incentives/decision points. Additionally I am not sure that there is the granularity within the FoG system to give a long range penalty that would just be crippling which could lead to odd tactical incentives.

The regimental gun point is interesting, although I'd only want to change that if it is perceived that they are too good value for their points cost (on the assumption that points cannot change which seems to be the FoG way) - do you think there is such a perception? I'd also be careful about not doing something odd that means the Chinese regimental guns are out of whack as a result.

I would also leave commanded shot out of any comparisons here. If there is an issue with them (and I suspect there is, but would need to quantify it) I would look to address that as a separate issue.

[kevinj]

I've used Late Swedes quite a lot, and frequently I've found no incentive to move to short range early as I can often outshoot my opponents at long range and I get no benefit from moving closer compared to other shooters. So I'd like to see some coercion to close quicker which fits better with the way I see the Swedish/French tactics. I think that it's worth considering the effect of the RGs in this as they are often what makes up the difference, especially those with the Swedish Commanded Shot who can sneak a long range shot with 2 dice very easily to tip the balance.

[nikgaukroger]

As I said I think the commanded shot need to be looked at separately.

The issue there, I would guess, is that in the Swedish army they end up not being used as commanded shot but as sniping assault squads - therefore, what is needed is a change so that they get used as commanded shot in an historic manner at which point they are not an issue in the Swedish brigade interaction and won't muddy waters when looking at that.

[kevinj]

I agree that any changes need to consider any knock on effects on other troops, but for me these are all contributory factors as to why Swedes (and to a lesser extent French) have a tendency to hang around at long range rather than closing to charge range more quickly. The fact that it's also an issue with non-Swedish Brigade troops suggests to me that changing the armour effects of the Swedish Brigade may not be a complete solution.

[nikgaukroger]

The fact that it's also an issue with non-Swedish Brigade troops

Is it actually an issue that other troops don't get to short range? What do you think is stopping them getting closer?

Also any thoughts on making commanded shot in the Swedish army behave more historically?


BTW as one of the authors I feel obliged to say that people should not read anything into my postings here in relation to any possible amendments to FoG:R - this is all purely idle speculation on my part; just interested in what issues players see and what might be solutions if the time should come

[kevinj]

Is it actually an issue that other troops don't get to short range? What do you think is stopping them getting closer?

Maybe it's just me but I think the issue is down to the fact that all long range shooting is equal in effect, but Musket armed troops are significantly better at effective range. So there's a reluctance to advance into a position where you will take 2 rounds of shooting with less dice than your opponent before you can charge, whereas if you remain at long range you have a chance to manufacture an advantage by disrupting your opponent or causing base losses before doing so.

Also any thoughts on making commanded shot in the Swedish army behave more historically?

For Commanded Shot generally, perhaps a rule that they had to be, or move towards being, within a certain distance of friendly Mounted? But for the Swedes specifically I think the issue is their Regimental Guns.

My suggestion to address both of these issues would be that BGs with Regimental Guns can only shoot with them at Effective Range if they have Musket* or Salvo capability (i.e. those with Musket, Bow or Crossbow are unchanged). I think this would give an incentive to close for the P+S BGs and would reduce the appeal of the Swedish Sniper Squads.

[nikgaukroger]

Is it actually an issue that other troops don't get to short range? What do you think is stopping them getting closer?

Maybe it's just me but I think the issue is down to the fact that all long range shooting is equal in effect, but Musket armed troops are significantly better at effective range. So there's a reluctance to advance into a position where you will take 2 rounds of shooting with less dice than your opponent before you can charge, whereas if you remain at long range you have a chance to manufacture an advantage by disrupting your opponent or causing base losses before doing so.

OK, so this is back to the Swedish brigade if I read you aright - I was also interested in the bit I quoted which I took to be you saying that even non-Swedish brigade types are reluctant to close to effective range and was wondering why that was (parallel to the Swedish issue). Did I read your post incorrectly?

However, on the Swedish point the Swedes (and French) do have to take a certain amount of stick at close range - the things that go in their favour in this are their extra base and that when they impact they are ++ against normal pike & shot BGs which is not to be sneezed at. The fact they are Shock troops also mitigates if they are Disrupted as they do not have to CMT to charge. The French are not quite so well off as they only get a +, however, their shooting is a touch better than the Swedes. Swedes and French, I think, need a certain amount of cojones but can get a very rapid break through as a reward.

Also any thoughts on making commanded shot in the Swedish army behave more historically?

For Commanded Shot generally, perhaps a rule that they had to be, or move towards being, within a certain distance of friendly Mounted? But for the Swedes specifically I think the issue is their Regimental Guns.

My suggestion to address both of these issues would be that BGs with Regimental Guns can only shoot with them at Effective Range if they have Musket* or Salvo capability (i.e. those with Musket, Bow or Crossbow are unchanged). I think this would give an incentive to close for the P+S BGs and would reduce the appeal of the Swedish Sniper Squads.

If the issue is the guns would it not be the most simple solution to just remove the guns from the commanded shot?

Mind you I think saying they have to be deployed with mounted in some way may also be a useful thing.

[kevinj]

OK, so this is back to the Swedish brigade if I read you aright - I was also interested in the bit I quoted which I took to be you saying that even non-Swedish brigade types are reluctant to close to effective range and was wondering why that was (parallel to the Swedish issue). Did I read your post incorrectly?

I think you read it correctly, my point is that I don't think it just affects Swedish Brigades, so removing their armour benefits would not be sufficient to encourage them to close quicker.

If the issue is the guns would it not be the most simple solution to just remove the guns from the commanded shot?

That would be fine by me.

[nikgaukroger]

Just pondering the incentives on closing. If there is currently a disincentive to close due to taking a couple of bounds shooting at a disadvantage wouldn't the situation be worse still if long range shooting was also at a disadvantage? You could easily have Swedes not wanting to advance at all

[madaxeman]

It might also be a symptom of "at" 6MU/3MU vs "within" 6MU/3MU.... I'm not sure why, but bear with me...

Consider Swedes vs normal P&S

We know that the Swedes are better at long range (lets call it 4MU) so can sit there all day. But it's only if the Swedes advance into charge range the normal P&S get off 2 rounds of shooting at maximum effect before the Swedes charge... but if the normal P&S advance to within 3MU they only get one round of shooting in before the Swedes charge home. So they lose out both ways...

If shooting at close range was "at 3MU or less" but charges were only possible "at less than 3MU" ... or even if close range for normal P&S (or even non salvo shotte) was extended to 4MU that would mean nornal P&S should always get 2 (if they stand) or 3 (if they step forward into 4MU in their own turn) or even 4 (if the Swedes are commanded by an idiot like me and advance to 3.5 MU) shots off at the Swedes before they hit... which might give be a better balance ... ?

Or the "Swedish Salvo" charge has to be from inside 2 MU to gain the full +2, otherwise its +1 only ?

Discuss...

[timmy1]

Nik

I completely agree with what you are saying here. I find that a lot of my time with Swedes is spent loitering rather than charging. I think the solution is as follows.

Change the Salvo to have the same dice as the ordinary musket when shooting at either range band but at a -PoA. This would remove the incentive to loiter and encourage the realistic tactics. (I would also change the Swedish pike to DF rather than HF so that they can charge from 4MU but some might object that I am talking my own book...)

[stecal]

My Swedes always get shot to pieces vs P&S and the often used commanded out 8 shot. I thought the long range armored thing was put it to give them a chance at all. Of course I only recently found about the commanded shot & RGO trick -- I foolishly was using them with my horse it seems.

Perhaps the commanded shot should not be salvo at all - this makes them much more vulnerable.

[nikgaukroger]

Discuss...

I see your point but think such a solution is inelegant.

[nikgaukroger]

Nik

I completely agree with what you are saying here. I find that a lot of my time with Swedes is spent loitering rather than charging. I think the solution is as follows.

Change the Salvo to have the same dice as the ordinary musket when shooting at either range band but at a -PoA. This would remove the incentive to loiter and encourage the realistic tactics.

At first glance I quite like the sound of that

(I would also change the Swedish pike to DF rather than HF so that they can charge from 4MU but some might object that I am talking my own book...)

Now you're being silly - and DF pike wouldn't allow a 4MU charge anyway unless you'd commanded out all the shot from the brigade a la Cornish pikemen. Anyway, I can't see any justification

[Three]

This might be a local variation, but playing with and against Early TYW Swedes around here always means being outnumbered , usually in a ration to 3:2 in regards to P&S BGs, so there is usually no incentive not to charge home as quickly as possible. I've just finished playing a game tonight where Early TYW Swedes (4 infantry BGs) faced Late Imperial Spanish (6 infantry BGs); shot the Yellow regt and a (superior) Blue one to bits, breaking both through base removal, but then lost 3 Spanish BGs to 2 Swedish ones who managed to charge home relatively unscathed. Pretty much as I'd have expected it to happen, so I'm not sure I see the same issues.

That having been said, if any of our group used commanded shot with RGs and didn't have them with mounted, at least on initial deployment, then they'd get short shrift, play the period, not the rules.

If you were to change anything, I'd make effective range for musket 4", keep Salvo and Musket * to 3" and definitely compel deployment of Commanded Shot to be in side edge contact with mounted. I'll admit to struggle to see how Bow and Xbow have a longer effectice range than muskets (different argument but I'd make Arquebus 4" range as well )

[quackstheking]

Sometimes the trouble with trying to fix one problem is you create others. If you move effective musketry range to 4' then you dramatically change the interactions of:-

1. Foot troops armed with bow as close range is now the same for them both
2. Light horse armed with bow who can shoot at 4" and can thus now face foot at the moment on parity at 3-4" (and thus represent skirmishing) but now would be blown away by foot if the ranges were harmonised.
3. Foot armed with Xbow would now be at a disadvantage where musket troops would sit at 4"
4. Warriors become far less viable as they would now need to get into close range to charge and thus take at least 2 rounds of shooting at close range before charging. (as would determined foot - no point in using those now!)

I'm sure there are many more.

However are the Swedes so broken and overly effective? - you don't see many in competitions - certainly no Swede has won a competition that I know of, which are 2 pretty good indicators of their effectiveness. As Three has said they are usually smaller and have weaker cavalry so if they attack rashly they risk being overwhelme and flanked.

I would hate to try to fix one problem and cause many others and change the very nature of what is a great game.

However commanded shot with RG's are another issue. Simple solution is to remove the capacity for Commanded shot to have RG's! Simples!

Don

[kevinj]

I agree with Don here. The original issue under discussion was not that Swedes are too effective, but that players tend not to use them in a historical manner by looking to dominate long range firefights rather than getting stuck in. Of course, this could be why they're not winning...

[nikgaukroger]

The original issue under discussion was not that Swedes are too effective, but that players tend not to use them in a historical manner by looking to dominate long range firefights rather than getting stuck in.

Quite.

Lets keep an eye to the actual issue rather than suggest it is something else - of course, if you think the actual issue is something else feel free to expound it but lets not confuse what we are on about here

FWIW since it was mentioned I can personally see no reason to change the effective range of shot - Don covers a lot of sensible points as to why it would not be desirable and when we designed the rules we felt it was desirable to have the difference; as much for the feel as anything else.

Of course, this could be why they're not winning...