v2 lists - Lances

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

v2 lists - Lances

Post by BrettPT » Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:29 am

v2 lancers have been left essentially the same as v1 - ie they get 2 additional dice in combat against enemy infantry.
While I'm not convinced this is the best portrayal of the benefits or disadvantages of being equipped with a lance, that's not the purpose of this post.

What I'm proposing is a general premise that Irregular or Conscript units equipped with lances will not count or pay for the special ability lance.

For Irregulars, this is because good order, discipline and close formation have been noted as being necessary for lances to be effective.
For Conscripts, it's because of the extensive training needed to be an effective lancer. Without sound training, they were just 'men with sticks'.

There's some interesting reading at http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/caval ... _and_lance for those who may be interested.

Comments?

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by hazelbark » Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:58 pm

I think it would be important to check the unit interactions before answering.

Cossacks charging infantry.
Prussian Landwehr Cavalry charging infantry.
Turks I suppose too.

geoff
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by geoff » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:22 pm

I love my Prussians. However, being so obsessed with them means I have read heaps about them. Everywhere you find references to the Landwehr cavalry being ineffective as lancers. Certainly during the 1813 campaigns many had none at all, although this is catered for in the lists. Their performance in the 1815 campaign is not a ringing endorsement either.
I would agree completely that Prussian Landwehr cavalry be treated and pointed as straight LC. Would allow you to keep the current models with lances but have them act more as they did.

As an across the board change for conscript cavalry armed with lance I think go for it. I'm not up enough on irregulars with lance to comment.

Philip
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:21 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by Philip » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:02 am

There are already some examples of this approach in the army lists. Many of the 1814 German Confederation cavalry ("Hanseatic cavalry" in the list) were equipped with lances, but are classified as Average Conscript LC without lance capability.

geoff
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by geoff » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:17 pm

Philip wrote:There are already some examples of this approach in the army lists. Many of the 1814 German Confederation cavalry ("Hanseatic cavalry" in the list) were equipped with lances, but are classified as Average Conscript LC without lance capability.
Good point Philip. Looking at the lists again there is no reason I can't run the Landwehr cavalry as not being lance armed.

KendallB
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: North Shore, New Zealand

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by KendallB » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:19 pm

The whole concept of a bonus for Lance's is spurious in the least.

Two dice for +8 points is much better than any other upgrade for attachments etc.

The only difference between lancers and other light cavalry is just a long stick. In reality the difference in our scale is negligible. A large lancer unit has about a 50% or more chance of destroying a disordered square which is rather preposterous compared to history.

Solve the problem by ditching lancers.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by hazelbark » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:51 pm

I tend to agree.
The lance ought to be more limited. Zero impact vs square. Some impact versus line. Some upgrade on if they win the loser has a worse result. Like one additional cohesion hit and if routed the unit is destroyed type thing.

pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by pugsville » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:18 pm

I'm generally on board with this. Effective lancers require a fair bit of skill.

pugsville
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: v2 lists - Lances

Post by pugsville » Fri May 12, 2017 3:20 am

Reading HofSchroeder book on 1815, he says that some Prussian ulan units were recent conversions from other units had not received any lances and no training in their use in any case. he actually pretty disparaging of the quality of Prussian cavalry in 1815, understrength, little cohesion (patched together form other units0 and "the landwehr (cavalry) were of questionable value and not really suitable for use as battle cavalry"

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”