My letter to Santa Claus

[Athos1660]

-

[AlexDetrojan]

P&S 2 would be also top of my list

+1

[AlexDetrojan]

My 'Santa's list' would be:
1) graphics for projectiles.
2) new movement sounds and battle sounds.
3) new(and correct)pictures for all the different types of units.
4) when units break, a graphic that looks like a fleeing mob, not a pristine unit marching off the field.
5) a real campaign system(not the pseudo one we presently have) Maybe even taking a cue from Field Of Glory Empires
6) different seasons on random map battles.
7) a default zoomed in mode(with scaling to zoom out) + better unit graphics to take benefit of this.
8 ) possibly generals if done in a sensical way.

[Athos1660]

I'd like to know what Richard and the players think of siege gameplay.
Any wish to add a siege module to a future P&S or FoG ?

Just asking as I came across two sets of tabletop rules that seem interesting : the Spanish Fury, Siege! for the 16th century and Vauban's wars for the 17-19th centuries.

I guess siege and open battle games are two very different realms/game designs.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd like to know what Richard and the players think of siege gameplay.
Any wish to add a siege module to a future P&S or FoG ?

Just asking as I came across two sets of tabletop rules that seem interesting : the Spanish Fury, Siege! for the 16th century and Vauban's wars for the 17-19th centuries.

I guess siege and open battle games are two very different realms/game designs.

It is certainly something we have considered. But for now we have decided against.

[Athos1660]

Thank you for the quick answer, Richard.

Looking at the scenario editor, there are already several nice things that can be done with broken walls, bastions, redans, ships...

[Athos1660]

As I see it, sieges could be fun if they were, above all, a way of organising a series of generic scenarios made of small skirmishes and larger battles, a bit like a FoG2 or P&S campaign that ties in several open battles. A kind of pretext or narrative backdrop for specific battles (like those already existing : Escort Bagage Train, Attack...) : sorties from the fort, reinforcements from outside, fighting a trench combat, storming of a ravelin or through a broken wall, a naval battle to run a blockade, landing of troops under fire, an open battle like the battle of Dunes during the siege of Dunkirk (1658), etc. with an overall objective (winning the siege), maybe even without any elements of logistics or management (about supply, powder, mutiny…) or something basic and handled by the game. Events such as the breaking of a bombed wall could be automatically generated and just be a pretext for the beginning of a storming scenario.

[Veles]

Salve fratres!
I know I'm a bit late to the party but... I'll throw in my suggestions for Pike&Shot 2 anyway.
I leave all FoGII improvements out since many of them, like campaigns, are obvious.

Gameplay:
- Later Tercios to be vulnerable to flank attacks, at least once they are engaged in melee. Currently, I feel they are too easy to cheese and leave them without cavalry support. Realistically this should almost always end up like Kircholm or Rocroi but it doesn't. Being immune to flank attacks is too powerful and unrealistic.

-Artillery targeting an area rather than just one unit. What I mean by that is if they miss the unit originally targeted, cannonballs should randomly hit the area around that unit possibly inflicting casualties to any units that occupy them.

-Artillery should be less effective against fast-moving cavalry. Currently, art is way too good at decimating hussars, cossacks/pancerni and horse. Large units of Kurrasiers, Reiters, and Arquebusiers are a totally different story.

-This one is on the border of gameplay and army lists improvements: Wagonforts. We need war wagons. They were too important in the time span covered by the game. Polish, Cossack, Russian, and even Ottoman commanders were often relying on using wagenburgs/hulaygorods. Not to mention Teutonic Order, Hungarians, and finally Bohemians.

- Currently, in P&S it's way too hard for the cavalry to disengage infantry units. In current instalment, it is possible to simply park a Later Tercio in front of Currasiers or Hussars and "bully" them to death as they can't realistically disengage. If you try to use retreat you risk a cohesion drop, then you get shot which may result in cohesion drop and all that just to move two pieces backwards. In next turn, your enemy will just move those two pieces forward and you're back to square one.

Army lists improvements:
- Adding skirmishing Haiduks for Poland and Transylvania. I don't know why they didn't make it into P&S in the first place as Haiduks were always formed in small banners from 50 to 200 men. They could and did join up to form bigger formations but just as often were operating in small numbers.

- Haiduks with bardiches for the Transylvanian and Polish army lists

- Haiduks with attached guns would make sense too, not too much of them but at least some

- Haiduks (bardiche) with impact foot capability after reforms of Jan III Sobieski

- Draby should have some armor

- Adding "proper" impact Hussars to Transylvanian army lists.

- Adding Armoured Cossacks with bows to earlier Polish army lists (Between 1570 to at least 1650)

- Since 1650s Armoured Cossacks should have their name changed to Pancerni

- Pancerni after reforms of Jan Sobieski should either be 50% Light lance/50% Carabine or simply both Light lance and Carabine (In reality this kind of set up for Pancerni existed before the reforms. Reforms simply standardised it)

- Adding Imitation Hussars to Russians. In the mid-XVII century, Russians were trying to copy Polish Hussars. The effects were... disappointing as those Imitation Hussars lacked the quality of training and equipment to match the Polish counterparts. Nevertheless, it would be a fun addition.

- Adding reformed infantry (novego stroya) to the later Russian army lists. Such infantry could have both pikes and bardiches. Currently, you have to choose between those two(I believe, maybe I should've checked before writing this).

-Adding Carabines to later reformed Russian cavalry. Nominally they were designated as Dragoons. Traditional Boyar cavalry should still be present in large numbers.

- (Optional) Adding Polish units to the Swedish army list from the times of Deluge (Second half of XVII century) as some Poles switched sides to Karl X Gustav. He even had Winged Hussars in his army.

- Commanded crossbowmen/arquebusiers to the earliest Polish army lists

- There were some rare instances of using longbows in the English Civil war. Maybe adding the possibility of recruiting one or two small units of longbowmen would be a good idea?

- Adding Royal Guard Kurassiers (Livfanan) to Swedish army lists from the times of Gustav Adolf. They could be Highly Superior as opposed to normal superior Kurrasiers

- Adding Hakkapeliitta to the earlier Swedish army lists (Polish campaigns of Gustav Adolf)

- Reducing the quality of Hakkapeliitta, Elite is too high IMO

- Adding "Lisowczycy" to Polish and German Catholic/Austrian/Imperial army lists before 1648. They should be superior Light Horse armed with either bows or carabines

Well, that would be (mostly) it.

[Athos1660]

@Veles : That's a list, long and detailed !

Just some personal thoughts :

Gameplay:
- Later Tercios to be vulnerable to flank attacks, at least once they are engaged in melee. Currently, I feel they are too easy to cheese and leave them without cavalry support. Realistically this should almost always end up like Kircholm or Rocroi but it doesn't. Being immune to flank attacks is too powerful and unrealistic.

-Artillery should be less effective against fast-moving cavalry. Currently, art is way too good at decimating hussars, cossacks/pancerni and horse. Large units of Kurrasiers, Reiters, and Arquebusiers are a totally different story.

I for one disagree.

Btw there is already a 34% reduction in casualties inflicted when shooting at Light Horses (hussars, cossacks...), because of their dispersed formation.

- Currently, in P&S it's way too hard for the cavalry to disengage infantry units. In current instalment, it is possible to simply park a Later Tercio in front of Currasiers or Hussars and "bully" them to death as they can't realistically disengage. If you try to use retreat you risk a cohesion drop, then you get shot which may result in cohesion drop and all that just to move two pieces backwards. In next turn, your enemy will just move those two pieces forward and you're back to square one.

imho Cavalry must avoid putting itself in such situations in the first place.
And a friendly unit can help it get out of this situation.
Btw when facing a P&S unit, a Hussar unit will be able to go up to 5 squares backwards (20 AP) without any cohesion test. Of course, the P&S will certainly shoot at it at the same time.

[Veles]

@Veles : That's a list, long and detailed !

Just some personal thoughts :

Gameplay:
- Later Tercios to be vulnerable to flank attacks, at least once they are engaged in melee. Currently, I feel they are too easy to cheese and leave them without cavalry support. Realistically this should almost always end up like Kircholm or Rocroi but it doesn't. Being immune to flank attacks is too powerful and unrealistic.

-Artillery should be less effective against fast-moving cavalry. Currently, art is way too good at decimating hussars, cossacks/pancerni and horse. Large units of Kurrasiers, Reiters, and Arquebusiers are a totally different story.

I for one disagree.

Btw there is already a 34% reduction in casualties inflicted when shooting at Light Horses (hussars, cossacks...), because of their dispersed formation.

Yeah, the thing is that if you go through diaries of cavalrymen from the era like Pancerny Companion Jan Pasek you can notice how he dismisses the threat of artillery claiming that most cannonballs were missing them "going over our heads" because they were simply too mobile for artillerymen of the time to take a proper aim at them usually shooting on spots that were already empty before the cannonballs could reach the target.

I would argue that when targeting non-light cavalry artillery (at least non-light artillery) also should get the -34% penalty. Exceptions would be particularly slow or/and numerous units like Gendarmes, Large units of Arquebusiers, L. Kurrasiers, and Reiters.

Although I'm not insisting on it. After all, it's a question of balance. Games should be fun first and foremost. I'm simply mentioning this because I find artillery to work much better against cavalry than infantry which is jarring.

- Currently, in P&S it's way too hard for the cavalry to disengage infantry units. In current instalment, it is possible to simply park a Later Tercio in front of Currasiers or Hussars and "bully" them to death as they can't realistically disengage. If you try to use retreat you risk a cohesion drop, then you get shot which may result in cohesion drop and all that just to move two pieces backwards. In next turn, your enemy will just move those two pieces forward and you're back to square one.

imho Cavalry must avoid putting itself in such situations in the first place.
And a friendly unit can help it get out of this situation.
Btw when facing a P&S unit, a Hussar unit will be able to go up to 5 squares backwards (20 AP) without any cohesion test. Of course, the P&S will certainly shoot at it at the same time.

Well, I agree but in certain scenarios like Kokenhausen or Kircholm, it's really hard to avoid (I still like playing them tough).

BTW, by Hussars I meant Winged Hussars. I simply dislike using that name because of how ahistorical it is. I might have caused some confusion because of it though. Sorry.

It's also quite easy to "cheese" (not sure if it really should be called cheesy) in certain matchups in random map battles. Especially against earlier Polish lists (turn of XVi and XVII century) when Poland has very little infantry and a lot of "Winged" Hussars. While using the Swedish army list, for example, you can invest all your points in the infantry (Later Tercios) and formed them in "noob-box" protecting your cavalry in it basically denying the Polish (or Transylvanian) player any cavalry engagement. Once you're done with his Haiduks it's over. Then you can open your formation, and use your Tercios to lock enemy cavalry in the "bully to death" situations.
Especially hard to deal with when you encounter it for the first time and you're not prepared. I was wrecked hard the first time (still managed to inflict over 30% loses despite very unlucky cohesion test for my haiduks)

I'm actually tempted to create a topic about this tactic to ask veterans how they would deal with it. Maybe it's easy and I'm just retarded.

[Athos1660]

Although I'm not insisting on it. After all, it's a question of balance. Games should be fun first and foremost. I'm simply mentioning this because I find artillery to work much better against cavalry than infantry which is jarring.

imho what is great about P&S and FoG2 is that Devs haven't sacrificed historical accuracy for fun, at least according to my reading about cavalry (that admittedly focuses on Western Europe).

[rbodleyscott]

Salve fratres!
I know I'm a bit late to the party but... I'll throw in my suggestions for Pike&Shot 2 anyway.
I leave all FoGII improvements out since many of them, like campaigns, are obvious.

Gameplay:
- Later Tercios to be vulnerable to flank attacks, at least once they are engaged in melee. Currently, I feel they are too easy to cheese and leave them without cavalry support. Realistically this should almost always end up like Kircholm or Rocroi but it doesn't. Being immune to flank attacks is too powerful and unrealistic.

-Artillery targeting an area rather than just one unit. What I mean by that is if they miss the unit originally targeted, cannonballs should randomly hit the area around that unit possibly inflicting casualties to any units that occupy them.

-Artillery should be less effective against fast-moving cavalry. Currently, art is way too good at decimating hussars, cossacks/pancerni and horse. Large units of Kurrasiers, Reiters, and Arquebusiers are a totally different story.

-This one is on the border of gameplay and army lists improvements: Wagonforts. We need war wagons. They were too important in the time span covered by the game. Polish, Cossack, Russian, and even Ottoman commanders were often relying on using wagenburgs/hulaygorods. Not to mention Teutonic Order, Hungarians, and finally Bohemians.

- Currently, in P&S it's way too hard for the cavalry to disengage infantry units. In current instalment, it is possible to simply park a Later Tercio in front of Currasiers or Hussars and "bully" them to death as they can't realistically disengage. If you try to use retreat you risk a cohesion drop, then you get shot which may result in cohesion drop and all that just to move two pieces backwards. In next turn, your enemy will just move those two pieces forward and you're back to square one.

Army lists improvements:
- Adding skirmishing Haiduks for Poland and Transylvania. I don't know why they didn't make it into P&S in the first place as Haiduks were always formed in small banners from 50 to 200 men. They could and did join up to form bigger formations but just as often were operating in small numbers.

- Haiduks with bardiches for the Transylvanian and Polish army lists

- Haiduks with attached guns would make sense too, not too much of them but at least some

- Haiduks (bardiche) with impact foot capability after reforms of Jan III Sobieski

- Draby should have some armor

- Adding "proper" impact Hussars to Transylvanian army lists.

- Adding Armoured Cossacks with bows to earlier Polish army lists (Between 1570 to at least 1650)

- Since 1650s Armoured Cossacks should have their name changed to Pancerni

- Pancerni after reforms of Jan Sobieski should either be 50% Light lance/50% Carabine or simply both Light lance and Carabine (In reality this kind of set up for Pancerni existed before the reforms. Reforms simply standardised it)

- Adding Imitation Hussars to Russians. In the mid-XVII century, Russians were trying to copy Polish Hussars. The effects were... disappointing as those Imitation Hussars lacked the quality of training and equipment to match the Polish counterparts. Nevertheless, it would be a fun addition.

- Adding reformed infantry (novego stroya) to the later Russian army lists. Such infantry could have both pikes and bardiches. Currently, you have to choose between those two(I believe, maybe I should've checked before writing this).

-Adding Carabines to later reformed Russian cavalry. Nominally they were designated as Dragoons. Traditional Boyar cavalry should still be present in large numbers.

- (Optional) Adding Polish units to the Swedish army list from the times of Deluge (Second half of XVII century) as some Poles switched sides to Karl X Gustav. He even had Winged Hussars in his army.

- Commanded crossbowmen/arquebusiers to the earliest Polish army lists

- There were some rare instances of using longbows in the English Civil war. Maybe adding the possibility of recruiting one or two small units of longbowmen would be a good idea?

- Adding Royal Guard Kurassiers (Livfanan) to Swedish army lists from the times of Gustav Adolf. They could be Highly Superior as opposed to normal superior Kurrasiers

- Adding Hakkapeliitta to the earlier Swedish army lists (Polish campaigns of Gustav Adolf)

- Reducing the quality of Hakkapeliitta, Elite is too high IMO

- Adding "Lisowczycy" to Polish and German Catholic/Austrian/Imperial army lists before 1648. They should be superior Light Horse armed with either bows or carabines

Well, that would be (mostly) it.

This is a very interesting list. We are not working P&S2 at present. If we ever do, it won't be until after the FOG2 franchise covers 2500 BC- 1500 AD.

So if it does happen, we will need reminding.

[Athos1660]

-

[Veles]

This is a very interesting list. We are not working P&S2 at present. If we ever do, it won't be until after the FOG2 franchise covers 2500 BC- 1500 AD.

So if it does happen, we will need reminding.

If I'll be around, and I probably will then you can be sure I will post it again.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Army lists improvements:

- Haiduks with bardiches for the Transylvanian and Polish army lists

- Draby should have some armor

- Adding reformed infantry (novego stroya) to the later Russian army lists. Such infantry could have both pikes and bardiches. Currently, you have to choose between those two(I believe, maybe I should've checked before writing this).

- There were some rare instances of using longbows in the English Civil war. Maybe adding the possibility of recruiting one or two small units of longbowmen would be a good idea?

Well, that would be (mostly) it.

Most of your points I either agree with or lack the knowledge to know one way or another. However, on these points I think the game already takes such details into account based on its system.

Haiduks with Bardiches: For one thing, the later lists have Musketeers with Bardiche available. For the earlier lists, I think it is assumed that some of the men in the Haiduk units in fact have bardiches, but that the overall POA effect of Swordsmen was considered the right effect for the unit's capabilities.

Draby armor: Other units of men that were at least partially armored are graded as Unarmored, to achieve the right overall unit balance. For example, many 16th Century Longbowmen had some armor, but because they game already gives them Swordsmen status the balance was considered good. The same goes for Pike and Shot units - some of the pikemen probably would have worn a breast plate or buff coat, but Unarmored is fine for their overall balance.

Reformed Russian infantry: The Pike and Shot units in the Russian army are assumed to have some men with bardiches in them, just as the later Western Pike and Shot units are assumed to have plug bayonets, and the earlier ones swords. Giving them additional melee POAs just to show the detailed armament of these units would make them too strong. POA capabilities are based on 'doctrine' and relative effectiveness, not simply whether the men had the weapons.

Longbowmen in later lists - even though there are scattered mentions of longbows being used into the 1600s, there are no mentions of them being used as separate units by the English (the Scots held on a little longer). Instead, it can be assumed that a few men in the more rural Trained Bands represented by Raw Later Tercios immediately after the Elizabethan lists have bows, but not enough to add the capability to the unit. This matches the rest of the design - for example, the Poorly Armed Rabble present in various lists probably have some mixture of retooled agricultural instruments, bills, clubs, swords, arquebuses, and depending on the region bows or crossbows. But they get no melee or ranged POA because the men are so ill trained and disciplined that any negligible amount of fire they put out is considered accounted for in the Impact and Melee phases.

For myself, I would like to see the Tudor lists get mixed skirmisher units of Average, Unprotected, Light Foot: 50% Arquebus/50% Bow.

[Veles]

Most of your points I either agree with or lack the knowledge to know one way or another. However, on these points I think the game already takes such details into account based on its system.

Appreciated. Really.

Haiduks with Bardiches: For one thing, the later lists have Musketeers with Bardiche available.

Yeah, for unknown reasons their name was changed to Musketeers instead of leaving it as Haiduks. But they are available only to Transylvanian lists from 1618 up (for some reason Hungarian Revolt didn't get them) and very late Polish list. In reality, Haiduk banners equipped with bardiches appear in Transylvania (and soon after in Poland thanks to a union between Poland and Transylvania) in the second half of the XVI century.

For the earlier lists, I think it is assumed that some of the men in the Haiduk units in fact have bardiches, but that the overall POA effect of Swordsmen was considered the right effect for the unit's capabilities.

Then it is assumed wrong? Haiduk banners had either all their men (with exception of tenth-men) equipped with bardiches or not at all. It was not mixed.

Draby armor: Other units of men that were at least partially armored are graded as Unarmored, to achieve the right overall unit balance. For example, many 16th Century Longbowmen had some armor, but because they game already gives them Swordsmen status the balance was considered good. The same goes for Pike and Shot units - some of the pikemen probably would have worn a breast plate or buff coat, but Unarmored is fine for their overall balance.

I have two problems with that:
- Primo Darby were a pavise crossbowmen that on top of that usually fought from behind a wagon-fort. I know that other crossbowmen in the game that potentially were equipped with pavises don't have any armor rating. I think this should be fixed in Pike & Shot 2. Otherwise, we ended up with situations when some peasants with bows (like the Transylvanian archers) or light cav can just absolutely wreck Draby, a state founded professional well-equped soldiers. Not to mention that when crossbowmen were protected with their pavises they were able to beat in few instances the legendary English longbowmen (for more info I recommend Ph.D. Tobias Capwell's video about Agincourt and 100 years war, available on youtube)

- Secundo, Polish Foot Banners referred to, in the game, as Draby consisted of three types of soldiers, about 60-70% of them were "strzelcy" armed with crossbows and later with handguns and side weapons like swords, messers or sabers. Usually lightly armored. Around 20% were Pavisemen armed with Pavises, on some type of a sword, and some "medium" armor. Their job was to protect the crossbowmen/gunners and fight in melee Finally, there were 'Kopijnicy" or Foot Lancers (10-12 %) that were armed with spears and ahlspiesses and other types of pole-arms. Armored head to toe in full Maximilian style plate armours. Their role was to protect others from cavalry and lead the fight in melee against enemy infantry.
I think they deserve some armor boost.

Here is an example of how foot-lancers (and other footmen in the background) looked like:


I guess my final argument is that either Draby should receive some armour rating and the ridiculous 50% light spearmen should be removed or get rid of the whole Draby thing and replace them with regular massed crossbowmen because otherwise, we end up with some pure fantasy unit.

Reformed Russian infantry: The Pike and Shot units in the Russian army are assumed to have some men with bardiches in them, just as the later Western Pike and Shot units are assumed to have plug bayonets, and the earlier ones swords. Giving them additional melee POAs just to show the detailed armament of these units would make them too strong. POA capabilities are based on 'doctrine' and relative effectiveness, not simply whether the men had the weapons.

I guess you're right. Although Landskneht units have both pike and heavy weapon capability I can see how it makes sense there but not necessarily with the Russian infantry.

As for the longbowmen, yeah I generally agree. I just throw them in as a loose suggestion.

For myself, I would like to see the Tudor lists get mixed skirmisher units of Average, Unprotected, Light Foot: 50% Arquebus/50% Bow.

Good idea.

[SnuggleBunnies]

- Secundo, Polish Foot Banners referred to, in the game, as Draby consisted of three types of soldiers, about 60-70% of them were "strzelcy" armed with crossbows and later with handguns and aside weapons like sword, messer or a saber. Usually lightly armored. Around 20% were Pavisemen armed with Pavises, on some type of a sword, and some "medium" armor. Their job was to protect the crossbowmen/gunners and fight in melee Finally, there were 'Kopijnicy" or Foot Lancers (10-12 %) that were armed with spears and ahlspiesses and other types of pole-arms. Armored head to toe in full Maximilian style plate armours. Their role was to protect other from cavalry and lead the fight in melee against enemy infantry.
I think they deserve some armor boost.

I guess my final argument is that either Draby should receive some armour rating and the ridiculous 50% light spearmen should be removed or get rid of the whole Draby thing and replace them with regular massed crossbowmen because otherwise, we end up with some pure fantasy unit.

Interesting. So perhaps the Draby could be something like Average, Protected, Medium Foot: 70% Crossbow... deciding on a melee weapon is difficult in game balance terms. Heavy Weapon might be appropriate, but it gives 0 Impact POA vs cavalry, which seems not quite right. On the other hand, Spearmen cancels out enemy Swordsmen POA if the Spearmen are Steady, and that would make the unit too strong vs cavalry. Pikemen would also be too strong, as it would put the unit at +100POA vs any cavalry, and cancel out infantry Heavy Weapon and Swordsmen. I'm starting to see why they went with Light Spear in game... it gives Impact POA, but doesn't make the unit too strong in melee, given that we can safely disregard the side weapons of the shooters, as the game generally does.

Maybe: Average, Protected, Medium Foot: 70% Crossbow. 50% Light Spear, 50% Swordsmen. That would make their shooting rather worse, but give them 50POA for Swordsmen and a little bit for Protected as well.

[Veles]

Good suggestions. I guess it all depends on how will the devs approach the design of the second installment. I imagine that it won't be just a carbon copy of P&S.

For example, how will they approach the heavy weapons? I guess they could give some small POA against cavalry. Also, if P&S 2 would have war wagons the problem of protection from cavalry would also be fixed, at least partially.

Balancing this unit still is tricky though. Your last suggestion seems to fit the bill if we consider the "top to bottom" design attitude used with the game.

[Athos1660]

Christmas is coming so, as a nod, here is a new (partly cosmetic) item to the list : more shooting, smoke and noise :
- more opportunity fire (not less), not only when enemy is moving, but also when he is charging. It does not have to stop him charging. It would favour a bit charged Arkebusiers and would make charging along shooting units more dangerous.
- smoke and noise for Impact pistol and melee pistol during the charge and the melees. It could help, for example, distinguish Impact pistol det. horses and Impact mounted ones acoustically. Kuirassiers's charges would be nicer. Etc.

[Veles]

Christmas is coming so, as a nod, here is a new (partly cosmetic) item to the list : more shooting, smoke and noise :
- smoke and noise for Impact pistol and melee pistol during the charge and the melees. It could help, for example, distinguish Impact pistol det. horses and Impact mounted ones acoustically. Kuirassiers's charges would be nicer. Etc.

Good ideas. I assume such additions are inevitable considering the graphic upgrade that came with FOGII.

- more opportunity fire (not less), not only when enemy is moving, but also when he is charging. It does not have to stop him charging. It would favour a bit charged Arkebusiers and would make charging along shooting units more dangerous.

I'm personally not sure about this one. Seems like something that could destroy the game balance. Besides short distance "welcoming volleys" are already represented by Salvo while all foot already has a chance to shoot at cavalry from a bigger distance. Shooting at closing cavalry is dicey as horses in a change can pass a distance of 50-70 meters in mere seconds. Infantry has to use this time to brace for impact and form behind their pikemen. A small volley from the first line (countermarch) at a 50 meters distance would be all infantrymen can do without risking being overrun.
Salvo foot on the other hand is assumed to meet any attack with a coordinated volley of all of their musket-men. This being possible thanks to their exceptional training.