Slitherine

Wars of Religion – additional list constraints


Possible unofficial restrictions to choices in lists. These are based on historical army compositions but the aim is that they still allow a good degree of choice for player enjoyment but restrict the existing over permissive lists in ways based on history. To stop this being too long I’m not including the reasons for the constraints (feel free to ask) – however, if something looks odd/wrong please highlight it and we can look into it. One thing to bear in mind that the constraints are somewhat generalising things and some “edge cases” will inevitably be outside what they allow. NB mounted:infantry ratio restrictions are in terms of bases not BGs, so armies max-ing mounted may well still have significantly more mounted BGs than infantry ones. I have done it this way as historical information is usually in terms of numbers of mounted and infantry rather than in units - for the purpose of this exercise I have assumed a base has a similar number of fighting men whether foot or mounted although this may be debatable (and is complex).

The suggestions apply to the main list only (i.e. Core and Optional Troops) and not any allied contingents nor, unless specified, to any Special Campaign lists. NB views on this welcome – can anyone spot a case which will break things?
Unless stated all current bullet points on list construction still apply. Again if any seem out of place please comment.

Later Eighty Years War Dutch
Number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons must be at least 2x the number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Later Imperial Spanish
Army of Flanders (including Nordlingen Special Campaign) – Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
Others - Number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons must be at least 2x the number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases.
All - For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Early 17th Century French
Number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons must be at least 2x the number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Thirty Years War Danish
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery. This also applies to the Special Campaigns option.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Early Thirty Years War German Protestant
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Early Thirty Years War German Catholic
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Hungarian-Transylvanian
No additional restrictions – issues?

Early Caroline English
No additional restrictions.

Early Thirty Years War Swedish
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Later Thirty Years War German
Before 1635 - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
From 1635 - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed 2x the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery. Number of Determined Horse bases must exceed the number of Horse bases. Kurassiere “Only from 1635” section of Determined Horse - Total bases changed from 0-16 to 0-24. Check carefully as it is a bit complicated when you include the section below
All - For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Later Thirty years War Swedish and Weimarian
Errata needed so that bullet that says “Minima marked * only apply if any non-allied foot are used other than Musket only German infantry regiments and/or commanded shot.” says “Minima marked * only apply if any non-allied foot are used other than Dragoons, Musket only German infantry regiments and/or commanded shot.”
If * minima apply - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed 2x the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.

Thirty Years War French
Before 1643 or Catalan War Special Campaign - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
From 1643 - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery by more than 50%.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Thirty Years War Peninsular Spanish
Number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons must be at least 2x the number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Scots Covenanter
No additional restrictions.

Scots Royalist
No additional restrictions.

Early Restoration Portuguese
No additional restrictions.

Confederate Irish
No additional restrictions.

Early English Civil War Royalist
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed 2x the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
Cornish army in 1643 Special Campaign - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.

English Civil War Parliamentarian
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery by more than 50%.

Later English Civil War Royalist
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed 2x the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery unless no pike bases or Medium Artillery bases are fielded – issues?

New Model Army
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery by more than 50%.

Early Louis XIV French
Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery by more than 50%.
Catalan War Special Campaign - Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.

One that leaps out on first reading is that the Early ECW Royalists need an exception for the Rapid Raiding force in 1643.

Looks like Royalist raiding force or Later Swedish for me or not play TYW,

I just worry its going to be foot lining up, which then means people choosing French and Swedes

which doesn't interest me

C'est la vie

Alasdair

kevinj wrote:One that leaps out on first reading is that the Early ECW Royalists need an exception for the Rapid Raiding force in 1643.

Doesn't "The suggestions apply to the main list only (i.e. Core and Optional Troops) and not any allied contingents nor, unless specified, to any Special Campaign lists." allow the raiding force as there are no changes to that Special Campaign.

Doesn't "The suggestions apply to the main list only (i.e. Core and Optional Troops) and not any allied contingents nor, unless specified, to any Special Campaign lists." allow the raiding force as there are no changes to that Special Campaign.

It's a fair cop!

alasdair2204 wrote:Looks like Royalist raiding force or Later Swedish for me or not play TYW,

Or a wonderful opportunity to get that Hungarian-Transylvanian army you never knew you wanted until now?

I just worry its going to be foot lining up, which then means people choosing French and Swedes

I don't think I'd agree with that - I'd say that the possible limitations I have outlined above are just going to produce the sorts of armies that most people have been using to date anyway, and they seem happy with that and it is what they are asking for on the other thread. However, they do need to have a good think about what the implications would be as options would be removes - the old be careful what you wish for.

Importantly, there would still be options for mostly mounted armies even if there are less of them - you've identified two and there could be more (or less) depending on the comp theme.

For me the key thing would be to try any changes like this at one or two competitions. See how they go and how popular they are. Then, if it looks good, mix them in with some Open competitions like we have now

Thanks Nik for the time put in, but I don't think this can be applied so narrowly and so anti cavalry.

Can I point out that 2nd and 3rd at Britcon the last 2 years have been all infantry armies with as many muskets and regimental guns as possible and as few cavalry as possible, anglo-dutch, habsburg austriann, savoy, (I got blown of the table by Richard's Anglo-Dutch but didn't ask for all the lists to be changed but just worked out a way to beat it) and the TYW French all foot with (1 cavalry) with regimental guns, yet nobody is rushing to change these lists which are as unrealistic if not more so (I at least have to have two foot regiments, they only have to have 1 mounted), all we will be creating is a open competition being dominated by these armies because the list changes suggested will destroy any chances TYW armies have of beating these. As I have said before at the moment most armies are still infantry and yet we are trying to put in changes which makes us take even more infantry

what to do

Alasdair

alasdair2204 wrote:Thanks Nik for the time put in, but I don't think this can be applied so narrowly and so anti cavalry.

I'd quite happily add in minimum mounted criteria as well - I was just thinking about mounted last night

Its just seems unfair to pick on the mounted armies when this approach is taken far more by the players who play infantry armies with the minimum cavalry and it would definitely need to be applied to Duty and Glory otherwise its going to be a musket regimental gun fest

Alasdair

alasdair2204 wrote:Its just seems unfair to pick on the mounted armies when this approach is taken far more by the players who play infantry armies with the minimum cavalry and it would definitely need to be applied to Duty and Glory otherwise its going to be a musket regimental gun fest

Alasdair

From the other topic:

"Note also that I would not expect new list constraints to only be applied to Wars of Religion - all books will need looking at to ensure even handedness."

I'd expect that to include mounted minima for the Duty and Glory lists for the same reasons as having mounted maxima in Wars of Religion.

I think the main effect of Nik's suggestions is to restrict the amount of artillery available to a mostly mounted force. That doesn't seem unreasonable. This would be a legitimate Later 30YW German list incorporating these changes:

3xTC
1x4 Superior Horse, HA, Pi/Pi
5x4 Superior Horse, A, Pi/Pi
2x4 Dragoons
3x6 Average Pike & Shot
1x2 Med Art
Ally TC
1x4 Superior DH, A, Pi/Pi
1x4 Dragoons

It would be good if some one could organise a TYW competition to play test the suggested restrictions.
John

kevinj wrote:I think the main effect of Nik's suggestions is to restrict the amount of artillery available to a mostly mounted force. That doesn't seem unreasonable. This would be a legitimate Later 30YW German list incorporating these changes:

3xTC
1x4 Superior Horse, HA, Pi/Pi
5x4 Superior Horse, A, Pi/Pi
2x4 Dragoons
3x6 Average Pike & Shot
1x2 Med Art
Ally TC
1x4 Superior DH, A, Pi/Pi
1x4 Dragoons

Have you taken into account the "From 1635" bit of "Number of Determined Horse bases must exceed the number of Horse bases"? I put that in as I reckon it should always have been in there and will probably suggest it to Richard as an errata entry regardless of what happens in these discussions.

That said, the impact of that may just affect the ally and in broad terms that list is a fair example of what could be done and so your point will stand.

Oops, missed the DH restriction.

This all seems very complicated... Wouldn't the "for each artillery ..." restriction in a few of these just about do this all anyway, maybe tied in with some very minor tweak to terrain dicing? Or some way of making artillery more expensive if the army is light on foote as a more complicated way of doing the same thing?

Fwiw I'm writing up the Pirate battle report at the moment, which includes a bit of a textbook lesson of the Mounted + Dragoons + Artillery theory, against an admittedly fairly soft target. I can't really pretend that taking Pirates should have ever given us even half a chance against any decent mounted, I expected to get run down if I faced anything like that, and I wouldn't ever want to see the rules or game tweaked to give something like Pirates a chance against such an army... But I'm equally pretty sure that Louis XIV didn't ever set his lot up as an all mounted army either, or form a battle plan involving supporting a massed artillery barrage with sniping Dragoons and high quality carbine armed horse to soften up the enemy for a cavalry charge either!

Or, put another way, massed horse is fine by me - people just need time to come up with a way to deal with it! And artillery is a great counter to massed horse, so even if the factors are a bit odd it does give game balance.....but massed horse and heavy artillery together is probably where it gets a little weird for me.

alasdair2204 wrote:Thanks Nik for the time put in, but I don't think this can be applied so narrowly and so anti cavalry.

Can I point out that 2nd and 3rd at Britcon the last 2 years have been all infantry armies with as many muskets and regimental guns as possible and as few cavalry as possible, anglo-dutch, habsburg austriann, savoy, (I got blown of the table by Richard's Anglo-Dutch but didn't ask for all the lists to be changed but just worked out a way to beat it) and the TYW French all foot with (1 cavalry) with regimental guns, yet nobody is rushing to change these lists which are as unrealistic if not more so (I at least have to have two foot regiments, they only have to have 1 mounted), all we will be creating is a open competition being dominated by these armies because the list changes suggested will destroy any chances TYW armies have of beating these. As I have said before at the moment most armies are still infantry and yet we are trying to put in changes which makes us take even more infantry

what to do

Alasdair

I think the problem with looking at prior results is that, well, people have only just figured out how the cavalry thing works, and they've only just started to copy it.... I'd suggest that looking at results from Derby and Warfare would be the best measure.

The flip side of course is that most of us have only had to deal with one such army once each competition, and so haven't been under that much pressure to try and deal with it (2nd is still OK!) ...and maybe now they are more common, counter tactics will be forced to evolve...

This however only looks at the top of the table - and I'm inclined to agree that the answer here is "come up with a counter measure then..."!

However the real issue is not at the top of the table at all. The problem is that given that almost no-one has managed to come up with a way of beating this type of army in the last 3 years, myself included, It's clearly bloody hard to do for any of us. So, what happens to the mass of competition players - including those who don't routinely expect to trouble the engravers, but just turn up for 4 decent games of shoving lead around? Everyone can live with being spanked by the best players once each event - but what happens when the "if you can't beat them join them" brigade starts growing?

Suddenly there are 2, 3, 5, 7 or more people using army designs that no-one has been able to figure out a way to (consistently) beat in the last 3 years? And not only "hard to beat" , but "hard to beat" in a "you're not even going to get a sniff of winning" sort of way. Surely as the proportion of these armies grows, this will surely start to make life unpleasant for a lot of the players who never even get to think about threatening for 2nd place?

As Nik says, this sort of thing almost ruined FoGAAM, and is the main reason I stopped playing it - so let's be sure not to let it happen here too

Excellent posts by Tim, particularly hitting the balance between accuracy of army lists and not making other armies like his pirates too powerful. I think this can be achieved in that the lists should work both ways in that armies which had a good balance between mounted and foot in history should look like this on the table. I am not solely going at this as a means of restricting the mounted brigade but also players like myself and Simon who tend to pick foot armies and unrealistically limit mounted. My Austrian army that was second at Britcon had only one mounted unit with maximised shot and regimental guns. Even to me this was a gaming device which the lists allowed. Any Late 17th Centiry main stream European army which has only one mounted unit to me looks clearly wrong.
Ah, well off to play FOGAM at the Scottish Open.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:Excellent posts by Tim, particularly hitting the balance between accuracy of army lists and not making other armies like his pirates too powerful. I think this can be achieved in that the lists should work both ways in that armies which had a good balance between mounted and foot in history should look like this on the table. I am not solely going at this as a means of restricting the mounted brigade but also players like myself and Simon who tend to pick foot armies and unrealistically limit mounted. My Austrian army that was second at Britcon had only one mounted unit with maximised shot and regimental guns. Even to me this was a gaming device which the lists allowed. Any Late 17th Centiry main stream European army which has only one mounted unit to me looks clearly wrong.

As I said above, if any restrictions are used they would have to be developed for all lists that need tham over all 6 army list books. Wars of Religion was just the one I did as an illustration of what might be done if we wanted to go down that route.

A quick and dirty additional restriction for the western armies in Duty and Glory would look something like:

Number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases cannot exceed the number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery.
Number of Foot bases excluding Dragoons and Artillery cannot exceed 3x the number of Mounted plus Dragoon bases.
For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 2 BGs of 6 or more bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those.

Ah, well off to play FOGAM at the Scottish Open.
John

Don't worry, you can return to civilised FoG:R gaming afterwards ...

madaxeman wrote:The problem is that given that almost no-one has managed to come up with a way of beating this type of army in the last 3 years, myself included, It's clearly bloody hard to do for any of us.

It would be fairer to say that "almost no-one has managed to come up with a way of beating this type of army commanded by Alasdair in the last 3 years".

I suspect most of the better players have not had much trouble beating them when they are commanded by lesser players.

I know I only fear them when commanded by Alasdair.

I think this is all an over-reaction.

However, if list restrictions are desired, I suspect that it should be more on the lines of forcing cavalry armies to include more average troops. If all armies had to have at least half their mounted troops as Average, that would probably solve the problem. (If there is one). At the same time, the late armies would need to be forced to have more units of mounted troops than the present minima.

So, here are some possible amendments that could potentially apply to all armies.

1) At least half of all non-light Mounted bases must be Average or Poor. (Note that this does not include Dragoons)
2) Armies must have at least 1 Mounted or Dragoon base for every 3 Foot bases (excluding Dragoons and Artillery), or half the total maximum permitted bases of each of Mounted troops and Dragoons if this totals less. If the list only allows a maximum of one unit of Mounted troops and Dragoons, the army doesn't have to have to have any.).
3) For every 2 bases of Medium or Heavy Artillery there must be at least 12 bases of Determined Foot/ Heavy Foot/Medium Foot/Warriors or a combination of those, or half the maximum number of those types of infantry that their army list allows if this is less.

Please note that any suggested tournament list amendments are unlikely to ever become official. They might be used for individual tournaments, or for clusters of tournaments, according to the wishes of the organisers.