Slitherine

Hi
I have noticed that there is no increase in firepower for the musketeers in that period with respect to the TYW one, but in fact there are two important reasons that will justify it.

1) The heavy matchlock musket (needing a rest) was replaced by the lighter flintlock musket, easier to reload and with less misfiring shots.

2) The infantry was deployed in 6 or 5 ranks instead of the usual 8-10 ranks of the late TYW period, allowing faster volleys with a larger proportion of soldiers firing each time.

The net result should be an increase in the firepower of the units in relation to their close combat power. I don´t know how this could translate into game balance, but if there are projects for later periods, like the Spanish Succesion War or Frederician Wars this issues should be addressed IMO.

Arguably the issue is not that the later period musketeers are too ineffective - they certainly aren't - but perhaps the earlier ones are too effective.

Either way, it does not matter much if the two armies are contemporary, as the increase in firepower cancels out (one can just assume that each round of firing represents a shorter period of time), and it is necessary to telescope reality a bit to make one set of rules work for a 200 year period.

A set of 18th century rules would need to be balanced for its own period, without reference to the earlier period. Simply incrementally increasing firepower from the previous set of rules would lead to a very unbalanced simulation. The whole concept of close combat would need to be revisited as well - with units being less likely to charge into contact, and less likely to stand to receive a charge.

Yes, probably you are right about early muskets, and especially arquebus, being too efective in the game, anyway my main concern was for future developments of the game in the 18th century period, so I am glad that a new set of rules would be in play.

Lot of "overlap" In periods but I think there could be a good case of warfare from 1660/1670 thru 1700 give or take having its own dedicated period/engine Lack of a broad interest base would be the hard part. Not too many as familiar with the wars of the fancy wigs and fruffilly collars period.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Lot of "overlap" In periods but I think there could be a good case of warfare from 1660/1670 thru 1700 give or take having its own dedicated period/engine Lack of a broad interest base would be the hard part. Not too many as familiar with the wars of the fancy wigs and fruffilly collars period.

Presumably any revision would have to take account of time needed for troops to straighten their wigs, brush any dirt off their lace, etc.......

TheGrayMouser wrote:Lot of "overlap" In periods but I think there could be a good case of warfare from 1660/1670 thru 1700 give or take having its own dedicated period/engine Lack of a broad interest base would be the hard part. Not too many as familiar with the wars of the fancy wigs and fruffilly collars period.

XVIII century engine will be a "gentlemen's game" .... i would rather suggest a special edition with a real tricorn .... i would be happy to buy one or two

I've just noticed that late French Pike and Shot do not have bayonet, yet in the Duty and Glory army list for FOGR they do. Is this an oversight, or has the teams view on this changed since Duty and Glory was published?

Regards

Paul59 wrote:I've just noticed that late French Pike and Shot do not have bayonet, yet in the Duty and Glory army list for FOGR they do. Is this an oversight, or has the teams view on this changed since Duty and Glory was published?

Neither.

They don't list Bayonet even though they have it, as the Bayonet has no additional effect (under FOGR and P&S rules) in the case of a Pike and Shot unit, which already gets maximal protection against cavalry.

It did not therefore seem worth the trouble of making variant units listing Bayonet as a capability when the Bayonet capability would not make any difference to the unit's function. Pike and Shot+Bayonet units in FOGR do not pay any points for the Bayonet capability, for the same reason. (Pikeless shot units do).

Note also that there are lots of infantry in the game that have swords, but do not have Swordsmen capability.

I think it would only matter though in FOGR (tabletop ) if the late P&S with bayonet lost its pike base? or for commanding out the shot? (none of which would make sense or apply to the pc game)

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think it would only matter though in FOGR (tabletop ) if the late P&S with bayonet lost its pike base? or for commanding out the shot? (none of which would make sense or apply to the pc game)

They can't lose the pike base. But, as you say, in FOGR they can command out the shot. Also they can turn into a column with shot at the front and then would get benefit from bayonet. These minor advantages were not deemed sufficient to cost points, and neither applies to P&S.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Paul59 wrote:I've just noticed that late French Pike and Shot do not have bayonet, yet in the Duty and Glory army list for FOGR they do. Is this an oversight, or has the teams view on this changed since Duty and Glory was published?

Neither.

They don't list Bayonet even though they have it, as the Bayonet has no additional effect (under FOGR and P&S rules) in the case of a Pike and Shot unit, which already gets maximal protection against cavalry.

It did not therefore seem worth the trouble of making variant units listing Bayonet as a capability when the Bayonet capability would not make any difference to the unit's function. Pike and Shot+Bayonet units in FOGR do not pay any points for the Bayonet capability, for the same reason. (Pikeless shot units do).

Note also that there are lots of infantry in the game that have swords, but do not have Swordsmen capability.

Thanks for the explanation.