Duty and Glory

[nikgaukroger]

There is, I think, a general feeling that there is something wrong with this list book, at least in relation to the "western" armies. The incentives appear to push players to minimise the number of mounted taken leading to very ahistorical army compositions even allowing for the flexibility we like in army lists. (Whilst the points of the list minima are no different from the other lists books the army compositions lead to incentives that are not seen, IMO, in the other books hence the need for a possibly book specific solution)

Suggestions as to how this can be addressed without being too draconian are very much desired. Preference is for fairly general ideas rather than having an amendment for each list, but at this stage nothing is ruled in or out.

[marshalney2000]

I have just been bemoaning the fact that FOGR , other than in themed tournaments, was getting boring. The main reason for complaint was that most armies were picked from this book and were totally foot armies that maximised shot. I hasten to add I was one of the guilty parties.
To be honest, the easiest solution for Western armies is to increase the minimum number of mounted in each army to at least two.
John

[ravenflight]

I think if you increase the effectiveness of DH et al then you will see this automatically fixed.

I wanted to minimise my mounted with the Louis XIV because they were CRAP. They were supposedly the kings of the battlefield, but would be lucky to survive 30 seconds on the wings against Cuirassiers. If this was fixed, I'd be much more likely to field them, and this would fix the problem of the whole book IMHO.

[nikgaukroger]

I think both are needed, plus there is the possibility of making Average more useful - a package of measure, but I do think mounted minima need to be in there.

[nikgaukroger]

OK folks, please have a look at this for Duty & Glory.


The minimum of mounted Battle Troops in the Core section of the army list that must be fielded (if they don't already meet this) rises to 12 bases with the following exceptions:

Later Venetian Colonial - minimum 8
Later Danish - minimum 12 bases, however, may include the Horse Guards from Optional Troops in the 12
Later Spanish
Later Restoration Portuguese - minimum 8
Covenanting Rebels
Monmouth Rebellion
Scots Jacobite


Need to think about it a bit more before posting a definite proposal, however, currently the thought is to allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none (Danish need pondering as they get Superior in the Optional section).

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Need to think about it a bit more before posting a definite proposal, however, currently the thought is to allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none (Danish need pondering as they get Superior in the Optional section).

Can they be the "more usual" types (eg DH -/Pi/Pi) and not the "most expensive" (DH Carb/-/Pi) as is currently usually stipulated?

[nikgaukroger]

Need to think about it a bit more before posting a definite proposal, however, currently the thought is to allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none (Danish need pondering as they get Superior in the Optional section).

Can they be the "more usual" types (eg DH -/Pi/Pi) and not the "most expensive" (DH Carb/-/Pi) as is currently usually stipulated?

Well if the reduction is points for Carbine goes in there would be no difference

Even if it does not I do not think we will specify anything further than Core troops - I do not think it is necessary to specify more than that myself. I suspect that the current comp one is there because mounted outside the Core can be upgraded and it is a way of avoiding "clever" choices being made.

[ravenflight]

I gotta say I'm not overly enthused about mandating this kind of thing... especially not as a mechanism to stop people building 'predominantly foot' armies.

There is a lot of things that go into people's decisions to pick the army they do. My first army was a Duty and Glory army (Later Louis XIV). For several reasons I decided to build another army. Those reasons were thus:

1 - I wanted to build 1 army a year and sell 1 army to finance the next army.
2 - I wanted to build a Japanese army as I've always enjoyed their history.
3 - I found that Determined Horse were crap, and I couldn't use them effectively in open competition.
4 - I found that the sheer number of Determined Horse that you had to build in a French Louis XIV army was prohibitive. Something like 1/4 of your points in compuslories... and in troops that didn't really do much.
5 - I found that the loss of dice in being Musket* wasn't made up for in the one turn of Impact +POA

The biggest reasons were 1-3.

After building my Japanese, I decided that I wanted to build a Danish army. My experience with DH meant that I didn't mind the idea of using 1 BG of DH as rear support, and would build a mostly foot army. I've always enjoyed 'mostly foot' (my ancient armies are Hoplite Greek, Viking and a Romanocentric Palmyran). That said, I have no problem with building an army with a reasonable number of mounted (q.v. the French and Palmyran). So, I really do think that if you make the mounted effective it will solve its own problems.

Had DH been better/more cost effective I'm not saying I would have kept the French (I'd already decided on a 1 a year build/sell) but my choice of army may have been different when I went to the Danes.

[marshalney2000]

I think many of us will have to look at the effectiveness our armies. Not sure that is a reason for not changing the rules if they do not provide the right balance.
Your reasons for picking the Danes were the same reasons I used for using Austrians at Britcon. I won the tournament but the total preponderance of shooty armies made it extremely boring. From memory three of my six games finished with both players going for ten all as neither wanted to risk a dice fest of shooting with no great advantage to either side. So I won but did not enjoy my gaming.
John

[nikgaukroger]

I think many of us will have to look at the effectiveness our armies. Not sure that is a reason for not changing the rules if they do not provide the right balance.
Your reasons for picking the Danes were the same reasons I used for using Austrians at Britcon. I won the tournament but the total preponderance of shooty armies made it extremely boring. From memory three of my six games finished with both players going for ten all as neither wanted to risk a dice fest of shooting with no great advantage to either side. So I won but did not enjoy my gaming.
John

This, I think, sums up why we are doing this. Too many players identify this as an enjoyment issue so we would be remiss not to tackle it given the opportunity.

You can always ignore whatever amendment we agree on and carry on as is - just because it will be official doesn't mean you have to use it and if your gaming circle would rather not then go for it

[timmy1]

I agree with Nik (I can say that as nobody is listening...). Numbers in FoGR comps are declining but if your group does not like v1.n they can revert to v1.0 with the errata. Also there are not many battles (I can't recall a single one) in our era where two foot based armies line up shoulder to shoulder and just shoot. (I know there are some where one side does it behind fortifications.) If it is not a historically accurate model then changing the lists to bring us back to a better model is a Good Thing, IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Need to think about it a bit more before posting a definite proposal, however, currently the thought is to allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none (Danish need pondering as they get Superior in the Optional section).

Anyone think that 1 BG per 3 allowed as an upgrade is not the right amount? And if so what would be suitable?

[benjones1211]

That's the right sort of ratio.

Maybe have a rule similar to the Ottoman Turks where overall no more than 1/3 of mtd battle troops can be Superior or better. Or 1/3 of the following types .... can be Superior or better.

[Jhykronos]

Need to think about it a bit more before posting a definite proposal, however, currently the thought is to allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none (Danish need pondering as they get Superior in the Optional section).

Anyone think that 1 BG per 3 allowed as an upgrade is not the right amount? And if so what would be suitable?

Is there a stated reason why European cavalry post ECW drop in quality (well, everywhere but France, Sweden, and Spain anyway)?

Anyway, as far as the idea of a blanket 1/3 allowance goes, my inclination is that this takes something away from the lists that get that 1 Superior guard unit at the moment. Probably not a big problem, but it's something.

And, as mentioned, making average horse and determined horse more cost-effective options, plus maybe re-evaluating some over-generous minimums in the lists, may be the key to fixing this anyway.

[donm2]

Was it ever considered giving each list a mounted to infantry ratio, so only armies that had a large proportion of mounted can be field as such.

When I did some SYW lists way back, I had a ratio of both cavalry and guns to infantry, to prevent unhistorical proportions of troop types.

This wasn't a problem for SYW as there wasn't too many army list, i suspect it may cause a load of work for all the current army lists.

Don

[nikgaukroger]

This wasn't a problem for SYW as there wasn't too many army list, i suspect it may cause a load of work for all the current army lists.

Don

Basically this reason.

[urbanbunny1]

Just a note on this, if we made the duty and glory armies have a minimum of mounted, we would have to look at some of the Wars of Religion armies as well so that they don't then become the default choice.

Only real worry then is that all the armies start becoming "same same"

[nikgaukroger]

Just a note on this, if we made the duty and glory armies have a minimum of mounted, we would have to look at some of the Wars of Religion armies as well so that they don't then become the default choice.

It has crossed my mind as well

Suggestions as to which lists would be most welcome. I already think that the pre-1643 TYW French could do with a higher mounted minimum - 8 instead of 4.

Only real worry then is that all the armies start becoming "same same"

[benjones1211]

I must admit to disagree on the pre 1643 French needing more minimum, during this period they regularly fielded armies with 10-20% mtd rarely as high as 30% could be as low as 5% (and this included their dragoons being classified as mtd), everything I have read has said they had very little mtd in some of their armies until 1643 because the quality was so poor. It wasn't until this was being reformed in 1643 and later did the % of horse rise to be more consistent with the other European armies.

Pretty much the std formation of a pre 1643 army would be plenty of infantry with Dragoons and Horse in small packets spread amongst the army, in effect would be the equivalent of two bases on each wing and another 2-4 bases mixed in amongst the infantry where a base would be a squadron/company. (And remember this would be Horse and Dragoons combined).

I know I play with The French a lot and people complain I bring the minimum Horse (the opposite to Alasdair), which is why I spent a lot of time researching them and was very interested to find that my army composition was very similar to the historical, although in order to be more correct instead of 4 Horse and 4 Dragoons with 7 Infantry Regiments should be 6 Horse and 2 Dragoon bases, with a unit of 2 bases on each flank, one in the middle, and 1 dragoon base on each flank. But unfortunately under the rules this is impossible.

French Armies of the Thirty Years War by Stephane Thion goes through some combinations

1629 Army Guyenne 6000 infantry 400 horses
1630 Conquest of Savoy 8000 infantry 2000 cavalry (Horse and Dragoons) Beginning
1630 Piedmont Schomberg 22 Infantry regiments, 7 companies of Horse (approx. 14000 infantry, 1400 Horse)
1636 Conquer Franche Conde 20000 infantry 8000 cavalry (Horse and Dragoons)

Of course there where also those times when more Horse was used
Conquest of Savoy end 29 Regiments of Foot, 48 companies of Cavalry (approx. 18000 infantry, 9600 Horse)

Unfortunately I have not got access to the 1636 -1642 pages at the moment.

But I am sure you can see the general picture.

[nikgaukroger]

But I am sure you can see the general picture.

Indeed - a picture of 3 of the 4 cases you give are not relevant to the list in question as they are from before its start date, and you don't have the information for the relevant dates

All smacks of special pleading

I do have the Thion book, amongst others on the subject of the C17th French army as it happens to be one which I am rather interested in, and think we got the minimum wrong first time around. Now is a nice opportunity to correct it as we are doing that with the Duty & Glory lists. There may well be others as Simon suggested and I'd be interested in hearing suggestions.