Page 1 of 1

Tercios in Later Austrian and German states list

Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 5:28 pm
by rbodleyscott
Who is allowed to use the tercios in the optional section.

Should they be called Spanish tercios?

Should they be added to list of exclusions for german states?

Should there be a cut-off date for them?

Re: Tercios in Later Austrian and German states list

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 3:21 am
by Ghaznavid
rbodleyscott wrote:Should they be called Spanish tercios?
Yes.
rbodleyscott wrote:Should they be added to list of exclusions for german states?
Yes
rbodleyscott wrote:Should there be a cut-off date for them?
I don't think so Spanish Infantry appear occasionally in Austrian Armies without a fixed end (well at least not until after the 30YW).

They should get the later Tercio option from 1570 and mandatory LTs after 1600.

Re: Tercios in Later Austrian and German states list

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:23 pm
by rbodleyscott
Ghaznavid wrote:They should get the later Tercio option from 1570 and mandatory LTs after 1600.
Any option for Musket capability after a certain date?

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:50 am
by SirGarnet
Mandatory LTs won't work with the HF/MF ratio change that "Fußknechte must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot."

After 1570, to get a Later Tercio, which creates a Medium Foot surplus of 3, to get the necessary 4 Heavy Foot offset of 4 requires two early Tercios since they must have at least 6 Shot and may have at most 8 Pike. Not practical, but in the alternative, a Keil of Heavy Foot would do the trick, or a Keil with 8 Pike/HW and 4 Arquebusiers. Since ETs are retired by 1600, after that date the army list as stated now will have to take a Keil as the first LK formation, with a Later Tercio available if the Keil has a sufficiently low shot ratio.

I suggest the restriction apply only before 1600, that it only require at least as many Heavy Foot as Medium Foot rather than more, and that the minimum number of Shot in the ETs be reduced to 4 to allow a force of 2 ETs to make 10-base ETs feasible.

The starter list needs revision but the rule needs adjustment first.

Cheers,

Mike

Re: Tercios in Later Austrian and German states list

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:48 pm
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:They should get the later Tercio option from 1570 and mandatory LTs after 1600.
Any option for Musket capability after a certain date?
In WoR we don't give the Spanish Musket in the tercios until 1620, the earlier list in T&T they are just arquebus. Possibly best to leave them as just arquebus in this list.

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:51 pm
by nikgaukroger
MikeK wrote:Mandatory LTs won't work with the HF/MF ratio change that "Fußknechte must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot."

Well spotted :D Have changed it to "Non-arquebusier only, non “(ET)” or “(LT)” Landsknecht battle groups must have more Heavy Foot bases than Medium Foot bases."

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:12 am
by SirGarnet
nikgaukroger wrote:
MikeK wrote:Mandatory LTs won't work with the HF/MF ratio change that "Fußknechte must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot."

Well spotted :D Have changed it to "Non-arquebusier only, non “(ET)” or “(LT)” Landsknecht battle groups must have more Heavy Foot bases than Medium Foot bases."
The restriction should use the term "Fußknechte." There are no arquebusier-only Fußknechte BGs so that reference is not needed.

For clarity, then, depending on whether the reference should be per-BG or across all non-tercio BGss of Fußknechte, I suggest

"Fußknechte (excluding those in ET or LT) must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot."

or

"Each Fußknechte battle group must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot unless it is ET or LT."

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:13 am
by rbodleyscott
Or

 Each non “(ET)” or “(LT)” Fußknechte battle group must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:17 am
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:Or

 Each non “(ET)” or “(LT)” Fußknechte battle group must include more bases of Heavy Foot than Medium Foot.
Sold :D

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:55 am
by rbodleyscott
Should any German states be able to field Szeklers?

If not:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops, Musketier Kompanien or Szeklers. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops, nor more than one battle group of Hussars."

Or maybe only Eastern states can.

Perhaps:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops or Musketier Kompanien. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops or Szeklers, nor more than one battle group of Hussars."

or if they might have some Sezklers, possibly:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops or Musketier Kompanien. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops, nor more than one battle group of Hussars or Szeklers."

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:00 am
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:Should German states be able to field Szeklers?
I doubt it, but would like to hear from Karsten.

If not, needs to be added to exclusion. If so, maybe say "no more than one BG of Hussars or Szeklers"
Or just Hussars?

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 10:01 am
by rbodleyscott
nikgaukroger wrote:
If not, needs to be added to exclusion. If so, maybe say "no more than one BG of Hussars or Szeklers"
Or just Hussars?
See revised suggestions above, but we need Karsten's view.

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 8:30 pm
by nikgaukroger
rbodleyscott wrote:Should any German states be able to field Szeklers?

If not:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops, Musketier Kompanien or Szeklers. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops, nor more than one battle group of Hussars."

Or maybe only Eastern states can.

Perhaps:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops or Musketier Kompanien. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops or Szeklers, nor more than one battle group of Hussars."

or if they might have some Sezklers, possibly:

" German States’ armies cannot include any Spanish troops or Musketier Kompanien. Those of Central, North or West Germany also cannot include Italian troops, nor more than one battle group of Hussars or Szeklers."

In the absence of any view from Karsten I would go with not allowing the German States any Szeklers option, and limit them to a single Hussar BG as well.

Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:36 am
by Ghaznavid
No, German States should have a limited access to Hussars, but not to Szeklers.