Slitherine

The musket* classification doesn't seem quite right in the rules.
Musket* covers two basic types of troops:
- those who were more aggressive and keen to get stuck in such as the 17th century French impact foot; and
- those who had poor or few muskets - like the late 17th century Irish.
Scottish highlanders are sort of a combination of the two - poor or few muskets and keen to get stuck in.

I am happy with the classification as it stands for the French. At long range they shoot like any other pike & shot unit which makes sense and their shooting is reduced at short range as it is assumed that they don't hang around for a fire fight and get stuck in.

With units which have poor or few muskets, they also shoot like any other shot unit at long range, which seems strange. It means that a unit of highlanders will quite happily sit back at long range and trade shots with the British knowing that they will be firing with more dice (highlanders are usually in 8s), forcing the British to have to advance to get the benefit of shooting at close range. This seems strange when the highlanders are supposed to be the ones to want to get stuck in.

I would suggest that units such as the highlanders and Irish only get 1 dice per 3 bases when firing at long range. This would however mean introducing another category, Musket ** .

DavidT wrote:This would however mean introducing another category, Musket ** .

Leaving aside the other points raised, this would be a no-no.

I didn't like the idea of an extra category either.

However, to get round this, similar to way it is proposed that a list will be issued of mounted units which can have commanded shot attached, a list could be issued of Musket* units which have reduced firepower at long range.

There's no way that troops with the same classification who are paying the same points are going to be treated differently in this way. I've always thought it wrong that troops who are supposed to be more combat oriented have incentives to stay at long range an prolong the firefight. Often French and Swedish TYW armies have an advantage over contemporary opponents due to regimental guns. My view is that Musket* and Salvo should be -POA at long range but we've not thought it as a sufficiently common issue to raise it.

Agree with Kevin as to the fact that it is a real issue. Not sure what the solution is.

Just a little outside the box, but what if we made the count for long range less but the count for short range full dice.

So (for example) 1 dice per 3 at long range for musket*. They aren't going to stay there... they don't want to stay there... they will get out-shot, so they move up.

They are now trading shots at full effect, but will still want to impact as soon as possible, because that is their best capability.

I don't think that 1 dice per 3 bases really works for P&S formations. It's fine for troops who have all got the * weapon but is likely to end up being 1 dice per 4 bases for theP&S. I agree it would give the Musket*/Salvo troops more incentive to close but it doesn't have the right feel to me. Also, giving full dice at effective range makes the likes of the Highlanders/Jacobites with all Musket* more likely to want to prolong a firefight than get stuck in.

So, since it seems that it's not just me that finds this wrong, do we have any other ideas? I still favour-POA for long range but it would be good to see other options. And it would also be good to see how widespread the opinion is that it's an issue.

IMO there is no issue.

There is no basis for these troops shooting any worse at long range. In fact, being honest, there is none for them shooting worse at close range, however, in order to bring out their more aggressive nature (Swedes especially) the Impact PoA mechanism was used as an incentive to get stuck in when close to the enemy - it is a period flavour thing really.

If there is an incentive for them to stay at long range and shoot because of their Regimental guns then perhaps the points cost of these is too low? (FWIW looking at Tim Porter's battle reports I'm not sure there is such an incentive, especially since the shooting at Armoured at long range - PoA was removed from Swedish brigades)

Yeah, like I said, I was only throwing it out there. As to the highlanders et al, you COULD put something in like

MF Musket* 1 full front rank and 1 half rear rank
Warrior Musket* 1 per 2 bases for up to 2 ranks... you could also give them the potential for 3 ranks to increase depth (if you wanted to). This gives them a more reasonable number of dice shooting, but shorter frontage.

The issue I had from the original post wasn't in relation to French Musket* as I think the current rules work fine for these.

It was mainly in relation to the likes of highlanders.

A proposal which affects warrior Musket* would work.
This could be 1 dice per 3 bases at long range - this would mean that highlanders (whether 6 or would shoot with 2 dice at long range, which is less than a 6 strong British BG and means they will want to go forward.
At short range, they would get 1 dice per 2 bases - this would mean that they would get 3 or 4 dice which will make them charge in rather than sit back for a firefight which, under the current rules, is the preferred solution.

I also have a radical proposal for Swedes which I will raise in a separate post.

DavidT wrote:I also have a radical proposal for Swedes which I will raise in a separate post.

Keep in mind we're doing a 1.1, not a 2.0. Still interested in hearing your proposal of course, just reminding everyone (myself included) that we're not trying to re-invent the wheel.

I agree that the highlander long range shooting is anomaly that I don't care for when combined in 8s.

I think the idea that Warrior musket* have a negative effect at long range has an appeal. It could be a POA. Which would be simpler to incorporate.

Agree do not mess with standard musket* types.

hazelbark wrote:I agree that the highlander long range shooting is anomaly that I don't care for when combined in 8s.

I think the idea that Warrior musket* have a negative effect at long range has an appeal. It could be a POA. Which would be simpler to incorporate.

Agree do not mess with standard musket* types.

Can we just add a line to the POA chart:

Warrior with Musket or Musket* shooting at foot at long range: -

We have to think of the long game here though. Armies such as Buccaneer, which are hardly sweeping awards from Britain to Australia via the USA would suffer a lot, and they already are a tough army to win with if the enemy have any decent amount of mounted.

And remember we are dealing with a set of rules for a game covering about two hundred years of history over five continents. Not every interaction is going to be perfect and we may end up creating one not completely perfect interaction whilst attempting to solve another.

In FOGAM I pay twice as many points for a Roman Legionary compared to a Thracian with a HW who negates the Romans armour and against whom the Skilled Sword is no better than Sword. It's a pain but that's the game and occasionally not everything works the way you want it to

Vespasian28 wrote:And remember we are dealing with a set of rules for a game covering about two hundred years of history over five continents. Not every interaction is going to be perfect and we may end up creating one not completely perfect interaction whilst attempting to solve another.

In FOGAM I pay twice as many points for a Roman Legionary compared to a Thracian with a HW who negates the Romans armour and against whom the Skilled Sword is no better than Sword. It's a pain but that's the game and occasionally not everything works the way you want it to

I tend to agree with this. My ideas are just throwing things out there to solve a perceived problem. It's up to everyone to decide if it was necessary. If I'm pushed, I don't think it is, or if it is, the complexity isn't worth it. I.e. the only way to make it 'right' would be then to adjust points, and that opens a bigger can of worms.

Vespasian28 wrote:And remember we are dealing with a set of rules for a game covering about two hundred years of history over five continents. Not every interaction is going to be perfect and we may end up creating one not completely perfect interaction whilst attempting to solve another.

In FOGAM I pay twice as many points for a Roman Legionary compared to a Thracian with a HW who negates the Romans armour and against whom the Skilled Sword is no better than Sword. It's a pain but that's the game and occasionally not everything works the way you want it to

Well one of the positive objectives of FOG and FOG R in particular was to try to make historically good armies not bad. And having stray interactions that potentially unbalance that are worth evaluating. We have seen in some quarters too much power in the hands of pure mounted armies and that was not really the renaissance period flair they authors appear to be seeking. Too my mind a simple POA for warriors firing at long range is a low threshold impact. Others who have opinion that matter more than mine, might disagree.

As for Romans. Those points you pay also include superior and a POA at impact and cohesion loss to foe if winning, so not all are spent needlessly.