Buccaneer comments.
Moderators: rbodleyscott, nikgaukroger, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
Buccaneer comments.
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
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
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
"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?
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?
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Buccaneer comments.
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.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.
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?
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Buccaneer comments.
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
"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
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Buccaneer comments.
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.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?
I am minded to leave them as Musket, Swordsmen.
Seems reasonable.MountedBuccaneers: as these are mounted versions of ordinary Buccaneers it is difficult not to give them swordsman ability.
I'll update accordingly.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?
OK by me.
Legal-ishBy the way I think the definition of the ships in this list as pirates needs changing - we are legals.
John
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
"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
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Buccaneer comments.
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)nikgaukroger wrote:I'll update accordingly.Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Buccaneer comments.
No just hadn't read it yet - have done now and noticedrbodleyscott wrote:Already done, unless you are working from an old version.nikgaukroger wrote:I'll update accordingly.Cimaroons: no problem with bow and indeed poor option.
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
"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
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
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
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
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Arguably, but they are a done deal (Clash of Empires is long since finalised), so no point in agonising over them.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
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am