Detached shot put to good use

[timmy1]

No idea - mine will.

[deadtorius]

Detaching shot rules does not specify any dates so I guess they could. Seeing as pikes were on the way out why not?

[Moro]

Hallo all!
From my point of view, the true asset of having some all MF musket/bayonet units is that you can play many nasty terrains and thus block any not outstanding mounted wing and have more control over the battlefield than the opponent.
Saving some points is not such an advantage, because you must field a terrible only pike unit.
Moreover, you must field 12 units of pike&shot... not many army can or have not more suitable units.
I made it with the colonial dutch because I wanted to field a strong contingent of impact foot/swordman warband, trying to offset their inherently weakness aganst mounted enemies...

[quackstheking]

I think it's clear the rules allow it (and it is a good option).

However was it really historical this late in the period or are we looking to stretch what the rules allow?! ( a bit like detaching Longbow and arquebus from Elizabethan foot units!
.

Don

[daveallen]

a bit like detaching Longbow and arquebus from Elizabethan foot units!

So, perfectly historical* then.

* See Sir John Norris at the battle of Rymenant, 1578, where he took the shot of his regiment and lined the hedges between the Dutch and the river.

Dave

[deadtorius]

Did not see any date restrictions in the rules, so perhaps it did happen occasionally. Pikes were definitely on the way out so why not detach some shot since all shot was the wave of the near future anyway?

[flamingpig0]

Can anyone point to a battle in the 1690's where shot was detached?

[shadowdragon]

Can anyone point to a battle in the 1690's where shot was detached?

The rules are about "detaching shot" but by the 1690's when the proportion of pike was so small, it would be more correct to refer to the pike being detached, or more than likely, left behind. Whilst I can't think of a particular instance the very fact that pike disappears implies that one way or another pike were "detached".

[deadtorius]

makes sense if you think about it.
Perhaps the historical chronologists forgot to mention it or it was considered too trivial a point to go into when it did happen

[Three]

Can anyone point to a battle in the 1690's where shot was detached?

The rules are about "detaching shot" but by the 1690's when the proportion of pike was so small, it would be more correct to refer to the pike being detached, or more than likely, left behind. Whilst I can't think of a particular instance the very fact that pike disappears implies that one way or another pike were "detached".

Perhaps, but equally, can anyone show a battle in the 1690s where the Pike were massed ? I don't really have a problem with the general idea of detaching, but I'm struggling to see it's historical basis, on the battlefield, in the 1690s. Pike were retained because the plug bayonet alone wasn't considered to provide adequate protection for musket armed infantry on its own, that came about after the widespread adoption of the socket bayonet. The rules appear to allow it, but the way it works in game terms just doesn't sit well with me. That might also be because I don't think of anything post 1660 as being in the "Renaissance" period

[shadowdragon]

Can anyone point to a battle in the 1690's where shot was detached?

The rules are about "detaching shot" but by the 1690's when the proportion of pike was so small, it would be more correct to refer to the pike being detached, or more than likely, left behind. Whilst I can't think of a particular instance the very fact that pike disappears implies that one way or another pike were "detached".

Perhaps, but equally, can anyone show a battle in the 1690s where the Pike were massed ? I don't really have a problem with the general idea of detaching, but I'm struggling to see it's historical basis, on the battlefield, in the 1690s. Pike were retained because the plug bayonet alone wasn't considered to provide adequate protection for musket armed infantry on its own, that came about after the widespread adoption of the socket bayonet. The rules appear to allow it, but the way it works in game terms just doesn't sit well with me. That might also be because I don't think of anything post 1660 as being in the "Renaissance" period

I think the main point is if it's worth creating a separate rule to prevent players from doing something of questionable advantage. Sure they get cheaper shot but at the price of a pointless pike unit that's more or less a target in a sea of muskets. Of course, it's different in tournaments where the 1690's army might be playing against a 16th century army, but that's an artifact of tournament play.

The rules don't really include the effect of socket bayonets. My interest isn't so much the 1690's but early 18th century. I'm switched over to using FoGR for the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS). Most changes have been handled by army lists, but I find that it is necessary to count troops armed with socket bayonets as "protected" as suggested by RBS. I'm inclined to give defending steady WSS shot a +1 POA at impact mostly to deter troops charging into melee until the enemy is disordered. I was thinking of allowing shot in villages to fire in two ranks but I'm now favouring allowing an army to fortify the edge of villages so that troops immediately behind are treated as in cover and in the open (i.e., steady and can fire in 3 ranks). I think that might give a better result and I can't think of an occasion where villages were strong points and not prepared for defence.

As for "detaching" pike the reason I put the term in quotations is that if there is a reference they would have actually mentioned "leaving behind" or "abandoning" their pikes for which there are references. At the battle of Steinkirk, French pikemen dropped their pikes to pick up the firearms of fallen comrades. But massed pikes? Well there weren't enough left by that time to be "massed" and as mentioned they'd primarily be targets.

However, back to the original point. Is it really worth another rule just to prevent players from doing it? There are probably numerous things players can do with the armies that are allowed by the rules / lists that have no historical precedence. I just don't see the value of creating a lot of rule exceptions to prevent these unless the player "tactic" unbalances the game for either tournaments or historical play.

[Three]

I think the main point is if it's worth creating a separate rule to prevent players from doing something of questionable advantage.

There isn't a requirement to create a separate rule, just add in a cut-off date to the existing one

[bahdahbum]

And I only wanted to point out a good use of detached shot

[shadowdragon]

And I only wanted to point out a good use of detached shot

Protesting won't work, bahdahbum. You're already a noted troublemaker.

[Moro]

Really I do not know how historically worked pikes in 1690's. However, I think the detached shot rule It is not well playtested rule. At least for tournaments, I think It's better to forbid his use...

[timmy1]

Moro

It actually works quite well in torunaments. It allows armies a degree of deployment flexibility and so makes for better games. I say this as someone who has not won a single one of my 16 games in competition...

[kadeshuk]

Good point,but at this date it was surely the grenadier companies that were detatched which atre treated as musket bayonet. Perhaps the later lists should allow only 1 stan per unit?

[daveallen]

Good point,but at this date it was surely the grenadier companies that were detatched which atre treated as musket bayonet. Perhaps the later lists should allow only 1 stan per unit?

You always have that option, although it would then be a nightmare getting the APs to balance.

Effectively, in the 1690s you are leaving pike behind to enable you to operate in terrain. The residual pike unit is just a quirk in the rules and, frankly, not much use except to support guns. Which might have been what happened???

Dave

PS At Central London we find it best to allow no more than 1 Stan per army

[timmy1]

What have Central London got against people called Stan?

[daveallen]

What have Central London got against people called Stan?

Nothing, except our Stan is a force of nature and the idea of more than one in an army is too terrifying to contemplate!