waldo wrote:The list seems an improvement on the existing one. I do have (still) a problem with a wholly armed musket, impact foot classification. The Iroquois can have half a unit musket impact foot swords but this classification for an entire unit is, I believe, unique in the lists.
I don't think the Portuguese should be treated as an exception to the general list pattern viz. no battlegroups have full musket capability and impact foot capability. In regards to the comment about no problem with arquebus, impact foot - that is an argument to take up with the authors why there is no arquebus* capability, not an argument for a unique classification.
As these lists are not going to be used in a colonial 'bubble' the issue of their classification vs European troops is important. If you want to use it for 'historical' batttles fine (there is no need for a list then) but as it stands the Portuguese are better shooters than French guards infantry. As you have no evidence of that (blasting natives doesn't count) then I suggest it is more prudent to have them shoot the same, as musket*. Other troops which have a 'shoot then charge in' mentality have the classification musket*, impact foot, swordsmen. Why not the same for the Portuguese?
Blasting natives doesn't count??? Why not? I think you don’t yet realise what “natives” mean! Those “natives” were not a bunch of raggtag fellows armed with sticks, quite the contrary.
Those “natives” had propper, well armed armies, with lots of arquebuses; they knew quite well how to conduct sieges, building trenches, earthworks, mines and instaling well placed batteries; oh, btw, those “natives” also knew how to cast one piece, 5 meters-long guns (!), such as the two you can visit at the Military Museum in Lisbon (there were more, but it seems they were melted to make coins...) .
It is interesting that in its description of one of the sieges of Diu, either João de Barros or Diogo do Couto reffers to that same prejudice you’re having now. Its seems that people in Portugal though the same as you do: “natives” = a bunch of primitives armed with clubs and stones. In order to counter that idea, the author described what the Muslim army was doing, closing the paragraph with something like “this (description) is so that you may see what sort of army was this, instead of the bunch of primitives some people in Portugal think they are.”
So, are you really sure that blasting “natives” doesn't count?
Nevertheless, Musket*, impact foot, swordsmen would be a decent classification, I agree. I’ve been there, believe me.
But then, the Portuguese, at an earlier date, would have to be Arquebus (whithout *), impact foot, swordsmen, and then someone else would say “hay, that cannot be! They cannot shoot better than the Germans/Italians/Spanish/whatever”.
Therefore I had to abandon the swordsmen, but kept the Arquebus and the Musket, in this case both without the *.
waldo wrote:24 superior foot seems quite high - makes me wonder why the Portuguese went nowhere in Europe and were forced to beat up hapless natives with sharp sticks for territorial gains...
Perhaps who should study demography, economics and politics. That would give you an answer to your question.
Why battling in Europe when all the riches were abroad? Should the Portuguese fight in Europe for a low mercenary income when they could have their pockets full with suggarcane money from Brazil, or spice trade in India, or winning the Jackpot with the China-Japan trade?
waldo wrote:Of course there is still the argument about all the other colonial lists - I'm sure there are a few Colonial Dutch, English & French would-be players who would feel hard done by if they are stuck with their lists while this one gets changed.
That’s their problem, not mine. It’s up to them to pick up their studies and present their case. The VOC list should have some native mercenaries (and not just allies), such as the fierce Bandanese they often used as cannon fodder, but again, let someone else present its case.