Eastern Woodland Culture

Private forum for design team.

Moderators: nikgaukroger, rbodleyscott, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22317
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Eastern Woodland Culture

Post by rbodleyscott » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:52 am

Dates needed for French and English allies to stop them being used with Armoured Indians.

I propose as follows:

French - only from 1610, but allow the Hurons 2 bases of French arquebusiers in 1609 to cover Samuel de Champlain's expedition.

English - only from 1621, when the Plymouth brethren made an alliance with the (Algonquian) Wampanoag - whom they subsequently assisted against the Pequot.

-------------

Should the Colonial English get Eastern Woodland Culture allies as well as the Indian troops in the list? (Not to be used together of course)

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Eastern Woodland Culture

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:19 am

rbodleyscott wrote:Dates needed for French and English allies to stop them being used with Armoured Indians.

I propose as follows:

French - only from 1610, but allow the Hurons 2 bases of French arquebusiers in 1609 to cover Samuel de Champlain's expedition.

English - only from 1621, when the Plymouth brethren made an alliance with the (Algonquian) Wampanoag - whom they subsequently assisted against the Pequot.

Works for me.

Should the Colonial English get Eastern Woodland Culture allies as well as the Indian troops in the list? (Not to be used together of course)
I only saw relatively small scale Indian usage, however, I would hardly claim to have done in depth research ...
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: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:31 am

BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
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: 22317
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:34 am

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
Unfortunately my subscription to Arquebusier has lapsed.

What changes do you propose exactly?

We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668". Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.

Maybe simply change the date to 1648, with a troop note to the effect that the Iroquois took full advantage of their early adoption of firearms to beat up on their less well-equipped neighbours. Historical sticklers can then refrain from equipping their Huron that soon. I don't think it makes any difference to permitted tournament armies.

We should probably remove the minimum for LF with Musket.


By the way, I assume that the weapons they obtained in 1648 were muskets and not some crappy obsolete Arquebuses that were offloaded on them?

-------------------

I have changed the date of the French starter army to 1650 and added the following to the French troop notes:

"France had been supplying firearms to her native allies since 1632, but when the Huron were attacked by the Iroquois League in 1649, the Iroquois advantage in firearms proved significant. It is uncertain how quickly the discrepancy was made up."

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:11 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:BTW, given that the Iroquois got large numbers of firearms from 1648 - which if the article in the latest Arquebusier is correct led to a string of victories - should they get higher numbers of firearms earlier than others in this list, specifically the tribes allied to the French?
Unfortunately my subscription to Arquebusier has lapsed.

Not much of a loss IMO - doubt I will renew mine.

What changes do you propose exactly?

We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668".
Something like that.

Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.
If the Euros don't supply then they can't catch up - French policy, for example, banned direct sales of firearms even after the Dutch and British did, restricting them to gifts.


By the way, I assume that the weapons they obtained in 1648 were muskets and not some crappy obsolete Arquebuses that were offloaded on them?
As far as I can tell they were proper muskets. By 1648 the Dutch and English probably didn't have any obsolete stuff to offload anyway.

I have changed the date of the French starter army to 1650 and added the following to the French troop notes:

"France had been supplying firearms to her native allies since 1632, but when the Huron were attacked by the Iroquois League in 1649, the Iroquois advantage in firearms proved significant. It is uncertain how quickly the discrepancy was made up."
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: 22317
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:18 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
What changes do you propose exactly?

We could change the 1668 things to: "Only Iroquois League from 1648, others from 1668".
Something like that.

Though it perhaps defies reason that none of the other tribes caught up for 20 years.
If the Euros don't supply then they can't catch up - French policy, for example, banned direct sales of firearms even after the Dutch and British did, restricting them to gifts.
Fair enough, I will go with 1648 for Iroquois, 1668 for others then. (And my suggested troop-note becomes redundant.)

Post Reply

Return to “FoGR Lists”