Buccaneer comments.

Private forum for design team.

Moderators: rbodleyscott, nikgaukroger, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Buccaneer comments.

Post by marshalney2000 »

Here goes:
Bayonets: Buccaneers seem to have had no problem with Spanish cavalry and indeed it is mentioned that the Buccaneers actually decided against adopting pikes as they defeated Spanish cavalry without them. Are you going to take away bayonet totally?

MountedBuccaneers: as these are mounted versions of ordinary Buccaneers it is difficult not to give them swordsman ability.

Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.

Superior option: I had intended to allow a small number of buccaneers to be upgraded to superior as veteran buccaneers but forgot. How about 0-12?

Special rules removal: humph not best pleased at this removal of colour from this list. Fail to see how this is different from the fake hussars option in the Polish army. Is this situation covered in the main rules I.e. A few yokels on donkeys can fool the enemy into thinking they are elite hussars band and can indeed set up in area they would not normally be allowed. Perhaps I should have asked for the mob to be treated as fake ships!!!
By the way I think the definition of the ships in this list as pirates needs changing - we are legals.
John
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

By the way we will have to tie the terrain for this list with what we eventually decide for the Caribs etc.
John
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

"Privateers and pirates" seems to cover the general text references in the intro and the dual careers they might enjoy when necessary, and "buccaneers" nicely avoids the distinction (as I'm sure those good fellows would prefer, if not "gentleman adventurers").

For colour, how about changing to the contemporary term: "Bubccaneers with grenadoes" ? Much cooler.

And would the Aritillery be "Ships' guns" debarked for field use?
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

All for local colour.
Yes the guns would be artillery disembarked from ships.
John
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Buccaneer comments.

Post by rbodleyscott »

marshalney2000 wrote:Special rules removal: humph not best pleased at this removal of colour from this list. Fail to see how this is different from the fake hussars option in the Polish army.
The main difference is that it requires a slew of additional rules. The ones you proposed are not sufficient by themselves. For example, you need to stop them from disrupting troops behind them when they break. It isn't a simple shoe-in like the Polish hussars are, and I feel that it goes a step too far.

We decided not to have hostage screens in the FOGAM rules, partly because as far as we could determine it was mostly a ploy used in sieges, which the rules do not cover, rather than field battles. Am I mistaken in thinking that this may also apply to the Buccaneer case?
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Buccaneer comments.

Post by nikgaukroger »

rbodleyscott wrote:We decided not to have hostage screens in the FOGAM rules, partly because as far as we could determine it was mostly a ploy used in sieges, which the rules do not cover, rather than field battles. Am I mistaken in thinking that this may also apply to the Buccaneer case?

The Buccaneer case appears to be a siege as well - that of Porto Bello in 1668.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Buccaneer comments.

Post by nikgaukroger »

marshalney2000 wrote:Bayonets: Buccaneers seem to have had no problem with Spanish cavalry and indeed it is mentioned that the Buccaneers actually decided against adopting pikes as they defeated Spanish cavalry without them. Are you going to take away bayonet totally?
The Osprey on buccaneers certainly says they had no problems with Spanish cavalry - the lack of numbers of the cavalry being a factor, but also that the musket volleys were enough. Importantly this would appear to pre-date the bayonets invention because, as you say, pikes were deemed unnecessary. It would be odd if they then needed the bayonet.

I am minded to leave them as Musket, Swordsmen.


MountedBuccaneers: as these are mounted versions of ordinary Buccaneers it is difficult not to give them swordsman ability.
Seems reasonable.

Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.
I'll update accordingly.


Superior option: I had intended to allow a small number of buccaneers to be upgraded to superior as veteran buccaneers but forgot. How about 0-12?

OK by me.
By the way I think the definition of the ships in this list as pirates needs changing - we are legals.
John
Legal-ish :D
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Buccaneer comments.

Post by rbodleyscott »

nikgaukroger wrote:
Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.
I'll update accordingly.
Already done, unless you are working from an old version. You should be working either from 1.16d (or 1.16e, which is the same with the tracked changes accepted)
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Buccaneer comments.

Post by nikgaukroger »

rbodleyscott wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.
I'll update accordingly.
Already done, unless you are working from an old version.
No just hadn't read it yet - have done now and noticed :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

The attack on Porto Bello as I read it was an assault on a town but not part of a siege.
As an simpler alternative how about making the skirmish screen lf average. Average on the basis that the nuns and priests are so full of confidence in the hereafter that they do not fear death and also the fact that they had a bayonet up their bum to keep them motivated. This also stops burst throughs and most cohesion troops.

Still not sure about removing the bayonet as they must have seen advantages in it's adoption despite beating Spanish militia cavalry without it. Leaves them a bit exposed to cavalry I feel.
John
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

Coming back to the fake hussars should we not base the points for these on mounted troops particularly as we are allowing them to set up in flank areas of the table and indeed will move at mounted speed at least initially.
John
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

marshalney2000 wrote:Coming back to the fake hussars should we not base the points for these on mounted troops particularly as we are allowing them to set up in flank areas of the table and indeed will move at mounted speed at least initially.
John
Arguably, but they are a done deal (Clash of Empires is long since finalised), so no point in agonising over them.
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

Nik, still no chance of a Lf skirmish screen of nuns and priests? The possibility is just too intriguing to miss.
John
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

marshalney2000 wrote:Nik, still no chance of a Lf skirmish screen of nuns and priests? The possibility is just too intriguing to miss.
John
It wouldn't have any effect since artillery can shoot through enemy LF.
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Post by marshalney2000 »

It would against small arms. Come on a nice touch of flour albeit the flour for nuns and priests is black.
John
Post Reply

Return to “FoGR Lists”