Slitherine

See Louis' XIV's boys take on the Austrians, Swedes, Ottomans and Anglo-Dutch in 4 epic battles with some of the wildest swings of fortune ever recorded on Madaxeman.com !



The report also features 2 new innovations - a "Star Wars" themed gadget created entirely with CSS and some new "What's going on here then?" explanations scattered through the text to help you better follow what's going on at a battle-wide level.



Click here for the reports

Thoroughly entertaining as always

Brilliant!

Interesting way to use the army...

timmy1 wrote:Interesting way to use the army...

Yeah, I've been chewing that over with Adam since the comp.

The problem with the Louis XIV seemed to be that they are "a bit better" than most in-period armies at quite a lot of things, but they are not "a lot better" than many at any of those same things:

- Good quality horse, but unarmoured, sword-armed and very expensive.
- The 2 units of compulsary horse isn't enough to do anything material, but adding a third means a whole load more points get committed to a plan which still isn't especially guaranteed to work anyway.
- 3 units of Guard foote, which is not quite enough to really have them everywhere and not as many as many as the armies who's plan is to max out on Superiors.
- 6 units of Pike and Shotte.. which isn't enough to leave some in rear support, or send some out to a flank to help the mounted.
- Impact foot... who aren't Salvo.
- Musket*.. who aren't proper Muskets.
- Pretty uniforms, but then we came up against Simons army in the last game... meh!

We did also fail to flank march on the final game, which was a mistake, and on balance our 4-gun battery I don't think did quite as much damage as it probably should have done (only 1 unit broken all weekend, and rarely did we get the chance to decide to switch targets after doing significant damage to anyone). So, close, but still entirely free of cigars nonetheless.

I understand there is a theory of many Dragoons aroud this army, but I'm not sure I understand it either

I would consider a few other wrinkles. Not sold on any of them but worth pondering.

Commanding out shot so you can get an 8 base impact foot increases your staying power tremendously. Also someone wants to put out terrain you can assault it quite powerfully.

I think 4 Med guns might still be neither fish nor fowl. 2 Heavy bases at angle might bark longer. Also versus nearly every opponent you want to attack. So you risk screening your own medium guns.

Also I think all your match reports indicate everyone needs more reserves (properly placed) behind the clash of foot lines. I think if you deploy wide at 800 points you have to have a plan to win the mounted engagement. My plan is often 5 units of heavy armored cuirassier, but that leaves much less foot.

Oh and buy some new dice.

hazelbark wrote:Commanding out shot so you can get an 8 base impact foot increases your staying power tremendously. Also someone wants to put out terrain you can assault it quite powerfully.

With 5+1 units you surely need to field an inordinate number of infantry units to be able to command out the shot in this army

hazelbark wrote:I think 4 Med guns might still be neither fish nor fowl. 2 Heavy bases at angle might bark longer. Also versus nearly every opponent you want to attack. So you risk screening your own medium guns.

Yep - I can see that. But we did play defensively and it didn't work

hazelbark wrote:Also I think all your match reports indicate everyone needs more reserves (properly placed) behind the clash of foot lines. I think if you deploy wide at 800 points you have to have a plan to win the mounted engagement.

In our best result the mounted were forced (by terrain) to act as a reserve in a narrow deployment... so yes, that fits with your theory

hazelbark wrote:My plan is often 5 units of heavy armored cuirassier, but that leaves much less foot.

Not really an option in Louis XIV's army I'm afraid... almost worked with the Danes though

Tim,

I used Later Louis XIV at The Challenge and Campaign last year and my experiences were very similar to yours.

1) The Impact advantage is not enough to be decisive and I found that by the time I got in to combat, the 6 shot units (with RG's) had either disrupted me or taken off bases and in a drawn out melee it was down to the dice with the French on the back foot.

2) I tried Dragoons in 3's and all I succeeded in for my 1st 3 games was losing the dragoons!

3) I went for Pis/Pis cavalry rather than Impact for the cheaper points (I didn't want the cavalry to fight, merely to protect flanks and stop threatened flanks) and impact often don't do great in the impact phase and they're down thereafter and if they're unarmoured against armoured as well , then thet're toast!

4) It is impossible to detach shot, therefore I also used the Fusileers du Roi which whilst expensive were a boon.

5) I took 4 TC's because I wanted my generals to fight and the army was too small to risk flank marches!!!

6) I usually chose terrain to close down the flanks and stayed clear of agricultural unless I was sure I facing something that didn't have more detached shot than me!

At the end of the day, I concluded that the Later Louis XIV army is good for mid table mediocraty!! Will give a few armies a run for their money but is not strong enough to deliver knock out blows. I played 2 Anglo Dutch and lost to them both as well as later Swedes - every time I was out shot and got into combat damaged every time.

BTW - as ever great reports - I really love the "What's happening now boxes". I suspect "The Don" will not want to face you again unless it is to exact some revenge for 3 defeats in a row!!

Nice one Tim.

Don

Tim

I agree with your assessment - you failed to add that in addition to all the other limitations they are French...

The What's Happening boxes were a really great idea - hope they become a feature.

And the reports REALLY made me want to get my Later Swedes rebased...

not looking at rules but why can't you command out shot?

you have 4 units of 5+1.

take 4 shot from each from 2 BGs create an 8.

remaining BG is 2 shot and 2 pike right. Pike cannot be used 2 deep.

Is there a rule I am missing?

It's this combination:

"The pike bases must be together in a single rectangle ... at least 2 ranks deep if there is more than one Pike Base" P33
but
"Composite battle groups cannot adopt a formation with pike deeper than they would have been in the original battle groups unless all shot have been detached." P183

Yep. I'm not sure what the minimum number of pike would be in a unit, and always sort of assumed that it would be 4. Which would entail having 8 P&S units, and splitting 4 of them into a unit of 4 Pike, and a 6 + 6 + 8 all-musket*/bayonet.

If 2 pike in a unit on their own were acceptable you could do a 2 and a 10 out of 4 units... but that seems a bit off given all the other units start off as 6's, and 10 shotte seems a little unwieldy / cheesy anyway.

madaxeman wrote:If 2 pike in a unit on their own were acceptable you could do a 2 and a 10 out of 4 units... but that seems a bit off given all the other units start off as 6's, and 10 shotte seems a little unwieldy / cheesy anyway.

Can't do that because the shot have to be in BGs from 2 to 8 bases. So your other option of making one BG of 4 pike and splitting the 20 shot over 3 BGs is the minimum that can be done*.

BTW, doesn't have to be 6-6-8, can be 4-8-8.

* Don't have my rule book with me, but I don't think you're allowed uneven detached BGs (or I'd have tried it... ). If you are then 3P/7M/8M would be possible, as would 5P/2M/7M/8M/8M etc.

Dave

kevinj wrote:It's this combination:

"The pike bases must be together in a single rectangle ... at least 2 ranks deep if there is more than one Pike Base" P33
but
"Composite battle groups cannot adopt a formation with pike deeper than they would have been in the original battle groups unless all shot have been detached." P183

Thanks. I've been playing too much in the two proper time periods (early and middle) and hadn't bothered much with the 5+1 bayonet era to look at all the pieces.

Yeah, Louis XIV are pretty crappy, but I enjoyed painting them up and am not unhappy I made the army.

Even thinking of 'heaps of fun, but will lose nearly every battle' Buccaneers next

Yeah, Louis XIV are pretty crappy, but I enjoyed painting them up and am not unhappy I made the army

It's that old adage about getting an army you like, for whatever reason, and not necessarily a "tournament tiger".
I still have all my armies going back to the early eighties and would never consider off loading any despite the crappy performance of most of them. Then again the consistent factor is me so it must be my fault

My Gush early renaissance and ECW armies languished unplayed for almost 20 years before FOGR arrived and now they are out fairly regularly, albeit twice the size they were. Much the same for the Vikings, Anglo-Danes and Normans undergoing a revamp at the moment.

Vespasian28 wrote:It's that old adage about getting an army you like, for whatever reason, and not necessarily a "tournament tiger".
I still have all my armies going back to the early eighties and would never consider off loading any despite the crappy performance of most of them.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I do agree with you on one hand, but on the other that I want an army that is at least remotely competitive. I'm never one to 'perfectly design a tourney winner'.

Vespasian28 wrote:Then again the consistent factor is me so it must be my fault

Meh, not for this army. The mounted commentary above as to why the army doesn't perform is quite 'on the mark' in my opinion. Having said that I did get some good results, and it's not an easy army to beat.

ravenflight wrote: ...I want an army that is at least remotely competitive.

I think this army falls into that category - I've done OK with it, but it can come unstuck against better armies if it meets them - or put another way, it cannot survive too much bad luck against better armies !