I'll post something on this in a short while - I jotted down some ideas last night after having an enforced 2 hour thinking period on the M25alasdair2204 wrote:I still think its a list issue rather than a rule issue

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
I'll post something on this in a short while - I jotted down some ideas last night after having an enforced 2 hour thinking period on the M25alasdair2204 wrote:I still think its a list issue rather than a rule issue
nikgaukroger wrote:I'll post something on this in a short while - I jotted down some ideas last night after having an enforced 2 hour thinking period on the M25alasdair2204 wrote:I still think its a list issue rather than a rule issue
I'm wary. If, as Kevin suggested, this is the equivalent of the AM "grit and air" syndrome - as opposed to the AM "swarm" syndrome - the experience tells me that addressing it sooner rather than later is needed; AM suffered badly because "grit and air" was not checked in some way.list_lurker wrote: This is just a phase, when people work out how to beat it then we’ll be on to next latest and greatest!
Hi Alasdair,alasdair2204 wrote:Thanks Nik for the time put in, but I don't think this can be applied so narrowly and so anti cavalry.
Can I point out that 2nd and 3rd at Britcon the last 2 years have been all infantry armies with as many muskets and regimental guns as possible and as few cavalry as possible, anglo-dutch, habsburg austriann, savoy, (I got blown of the table by Richard's Anglo-Dutch but didn't ask for all the lists to be changed but just worked out a way to beat it) and the TYW French all foot with (1 cavalry) with regimental guns, yet nobody is rushing to change these lists which are as unrealistic if not more so (I at least have to have two foot regiments, they only have to have 1 mounted), all we will be creating is a open competition being dominated by these armies because the list changes suggested will destroy any chances TYW armies have of beating these. As I have said before at the moment most armies are still infantry and yet we are trying to put in changes which makes us take even more infantry
what to do
Alasdair
Assuming a moderate size battle where a 6 base infantry BG is 2000 men, 4 base BG's are 1000, and 2 bases are 500 - this results in an army of:nikgaukroger wrote:Simpleton wrote:When you say Cav Max armies can you give an example? I just ran the FOGR Tourney at Fall-In here in the states. We had a 700pt 15mm Open and a 700pt 25mm Trade and Treachery Theme. All the T&T armies were foot heavy. In the Open there were 6 players. 5 played 30 Years War armies which generally require three 6 man foot regiments at a minimum, and the winning player ran a 1505 Trastamara Spanish.
At 800AP you could end up with an army like this Later TYW German:
4 TC
4 BG of 4 Kurassiere, Horse, Heavily Armoured, Superior, -/Pi/Pi
1 BG of 4 Kurassiere, Horse, Armoured, Superior, -/Pi/Pi
2 BG of 4 Bandallier Reiter, Horse, Unarmoured, Average, Carbin/-/Pi
2 BG of 4 Dragoons, Dragoons, Unarmoured, Average, Musket/-/-
2 BG of 2 Artllery, Medium Artillery, Average, Medium Artillery/-/-
3 BG of 2 Commanded Shot, Medium Foot, Unarmoured, Average, Musket/-/-
2 BG of 6 Infantry: 4 Medium Foot, Unarmoured, Average, Musket/-/- ; 2 Heavy Foot, Armoured, Average, -/Pike/Pike
Hi there,Delbruck wrote:
Assuming a moderate size battle where a 6 base infantry BG is 2000 men, 4 base BG's are 1000, and 2 bases are 500 - this results in an army of:
5500 infantry
7000 cavalry
2000 dragoons
Actually, I think this is a reasonably historical TYW army.
I do not, on the other hand, think Duty and Glory armies containing only one BG of cavalry are at all historical.
Sure, you would have to have an infantry centre of (I imagine) 15 or more BGs and cavalry wings of 4-5 BGs each.Delbruck wrote:I am assuming cavalry, dragoon, and commanded shot bases to be about equal strength, and close order infantry bases to be about double that. I think that 800 point armies are not large enough to simulate battles like Nördlingen, Rocroi, or Breitenfeld. For that I think you need armies of 1500-2000 points, perhaps on a 8 x 6 table.
Hi Simon,urbanbunny1 wrote: Mounted armies do allow you to run away, but, I've had some of my mounted armies wiped off the table by balanced armies. Some days the dice gods love you, other days they don't.
The problem with all of these is that they cannot match the pistol armed cavalry of the European armies. I have tried as hard as most over the last couple of years to get them to work. Even trying the 12 elephants at Britcon hoping to meet mounted armies and not meeting one.I can't comment on eastern european/asian mounted armies as they in next years CAPEX budget, but I would imagine they would be similar, but they have the advantage of having bow, so, they can shoot and so are not as dependant on artillery.
Hi Don,donm2 wrote: I am not sure the problem lies with the artillery alone. On the Saturday I scored 48 points out of a possible 50 and my artillery couldn't hit a barn door. Both games where decided in cavalry melees, where my weight of numbers and better armour counted.
...
This was my first outing with a EUROPEAN mounted force in over three year of competition gaming in FoGR.
Does nothing about the Duty & Glory army issue - if that is an issue for you.madaxeman wrote:Hmmm... Reading this, I'm still thinking that a small "clarification" to mandate a couple or more foot units per artillery unit might be enough to rebalance things.