Duty & Glory - what would you change?

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Duty & Glory - what would you change?

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:34 pm

A topic very much for my personal interest, but also possibly one that could generate something useful in relation to competition army composition issues.

As I've previously posted I have never been entirely happy with this list book, and it is one where issues with armies in it have been raised in relation to competitions. So I was wondering what changes, in an ideal world where the book was redone, would people suggest be made? And the reasoning behind any such.

Although I have also said I am not sure FoG:R should run to the end of the C17th (well, 1698 which is as near as damn it) lets assume that the current date range doesn't change.*

I've already posited a requirement that 25-50% of bases in an army must be mounted and/or dragoons based on the historical proportions of the real armies - I'm sure others have ideas.







* FWIW, on reflection, I think you could go to the end of the Franco-Dutch War - call it 1680 as a cut off.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

martinvantol
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: Duty & Glory - what would you change?

Post by martinvantol » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:34 pm

Hi Nik,
I might risk repeating myself from other threads here. Anyway, for the record ...

I think it's not so much the rules that are wrong, it's the lists. The period still encapsulates some nice contrasts between different armies. Don't see why these shouldn't work if the lists are re-worked. It should be within your grasp to have 6-7 viable regular European armies plus Highlanders, Poles, Ottomans and Russians.

Here are the things I think should change in the lists ...

(a) Abandon the idea that the lists should allow these armies to compete with those of other periods. Accept this as a stand-alone sub-period, with a small number of armies from other books which are historical opponents (like the Ottomans, or possibly add those into this book with any necessary adaptations to enable them to interact sensibly with these armies).

(b) The other concept point on the lists should be that the lists are not written to allow every force ever fielded to be reproduced. Players can make up those forces themselves for their ad-hoc games and scenarios anyway. The primary purpose of army lists, after all, is to facilitate competitions, not to cover all eventualities. So lists should constrain people to field typical armies. Therefore, if an army at 800 points is 12-14 BGs, then there should be at least 7-8 compulsory (rather than the current 4-5, and in some lists 3). Military history writers say that cavalry were 20-40% of an army and minimums in the list should compel players to reproduce that.

(c) Treating this as a sub-period on its own then allows you to grade the mounted types more finely. Currently you have the French with quite good cavalry, and everybody else with quite dismal cavalry. The rules as they stand should allow sufficient flexibility to grade the mounted more diversely. Something along the lines of more armoured cavalry or some armies getting a superior BG.

(d) The only rule change I think would be for average mounted BGs ... break on more than half casualties. That makes them more viable, although still worse off than the French mounted. I think the main variable you'd then want to play around with would be just how good the French mounted should be.

(e) I would probably be a bit more restrictive on the French list in not allowing so many dragoons (16 bases in one variant of the list really is a lot).

I don't think this would require big changes. I suggest having an experimental competition to try out whatever changes you're thinking of. And in that competition you pre-arrange things with people so that you have a spread of armies and army types. Probably get people to fill in some notes on the result sheets. (Don't count it for rankings or anything, in case people are bothered about that.)

Really would like to see this sub-period work. It's historically interesting, and I've got a lot of stuff painted for it.
Interested to see what others think.

All the best
Martin

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Duty & Glory - what would you change?

Post by timmy1 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:28 am

Nik

I would recommend only 2 changes for Duty and Glory armies.

1, Allow Average and Poor Horse that currently are in BGs of 4 to be in BGs of 4-6.

2, Most of the post 1660 battles I can see have a much smaller %age of the battlefield covered in terrain as they seem to need larger areas of flat to manouvre in (may also be a function of army size to map scale - not sure). For D&G armies change the terrain choice rules for the set up so that it is 1 compulsory and 1-3 others (rather than 2-4) would reflect that.

Both these changes to apply to either themed D&G comps or to open comps where D&G armies are used, and only to the player who chooses an army from the D&G lists.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Duty & Glory - what would you change?

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Change item:

Remove the half Poor requirement for Later Dutch mounted BGs. Almost certainly over-cooked their inferiority to the French with that.
Austrian infantry should probably be allowed Bayonet towards the end of the period. Reading since I did the list suggests the source I had that said they weren't in use until the WSS was wrong. (possibly raises questions about the interaction between Ottoman cavalry and western foot though)


Pondering:

Hapsburg Austrian Imperial kurassiere may well justify some Superiors based on some actions in the west. The eastern front Average only still gets the right incentives though IMO. These troops are a good example of difficulties in classification IMO.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

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

Re: Duty & Glory - what would you change?

Post by hazelbark » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:00 pm

[quote="martinvantol"]
All good ideas. Armies you create a special list for give them troops that are survivable against the new armies. i.e. don't saddle an entire army with arqubus in a musket period

Adopt a slightly different arm construction option where you are intentionally trying to make all viable. The argument to have or not have some poor units is totally subjective. Some units were bound to have dysentery on the day of battle.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”