English regiments are Kiels?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hello, ? for RBS
Have the rules been changed for the English "battles" ( ie the 25% each of arquebus/longbow/hw/pike ) so to be considered kiels?

My understanding for a unit to count as a kiel the following must apply:
"1) The unit must be at least 40% pikes.
2) The total number of pikes, heavy weapons and swordsmen in the unit must be a sufficient proportion of the unit that they are equivalent to more than UnitSize 500 as a proportion of the Squads file UnitSize attribute of the unit.
3) The total number of pikes, heavy weapons and swordsmen in the unit must be a sufficient proportion of the unit that they are currently (taking account of losses) equivalent to more than UnitSize 400."

Although 2 and 3 are satisfied, since the English units have only 25% pike, how can they be kiels?

[rbodleyscott]

The rules have changed to allow them to count as keils. No other units should be affected. They are still worse than "early pike and shot" units because they get less keil bonus and half their "shot" are archers.

[simacole]

They are truly appalling keils. I've played about six or seven games against the Scots and they get clobbered every time. It takes them an eternity even to beat the highlanders in open ground. I haven't once succeeded in even disordering an unarmoured Scottish pike keil. Confronted by the Elizabethan keils the Scottish pikes seem more like the Swiss charging over rivers up and down hills without ever seeming to become disordered driving all before them. I couldn't imagine 18,000 of these fellows surrendering their artillery to 3,000 border horse and mounted archers as they did at Solway Moss. The English don't even have any detached skirmishing shot. Whatever happened to separate units of archers, mercenary arquebusier units and mounted archer dragoons as skirmishers? The border horse by this time definitely had pistols or carbines. They were actually pretty good light cavalry. I don't expect an English army of this period to hold its own against the Spanish, but from its performance in Tercio to Salvo its inconceivable that the English managed to emerge victorious against the Scots in most of the battles of the period. Either the strength of the Scots is exaggerated in the army list, or the strength of the English underestimated. I suspect a little of both. I think the number of average pike in the army list should probably be reduced, more should be raw, and some more variety introduced into the English, in particular detached shot.

Has anybody succeeded in beating the AI except on the lowest levels with the English army? If so, I would be interested to hear how it was done.

[TheGrayMouser]

They are truly appalling keils. I've played about six or seven games against the Scots and they get clobbered every time. It takes them an eternity even to beat the highlanders in open ground. I haven't once succeeded in even disordering an unarmoured Scottish pike keil. Confronted by the Elizabethan keils the Scottish pikes seem more like the Swiss charging over rivers up and down hills without ever seeming to become disordered driving all before them. I couldn't imagine 18,000 of these fellows surrendering their artillery to 3,000 border horse and mounted archers as they did at Solway Moss. The English don't even have any detached skirmishing shot. Whatever happened to separate units of archers, mercenary arquebusier units and mounted archer dragoons as skirmishers? The border horse by this time definitely had pistols or carbines. They were actually pretty good light cavalry. I don't expect an English army of this period to hold its own against the Spanish, but from its performance in Tercio to Salvo its inconceivable that the English managed to emerge victorious against the Scots in most of the battles of the period. Either the strength of the Scots is exaggerated in the army list, or the strength of the English underestimated. I suspect a little of both. I think the number of average pike in the army list should probably be reduced, more should be raw, and some more variety introduced into the English, in particular detached shot.

Has anybody succeeded in beating the AI except on the lowest levels with the English army? If so, I would be interested to hear how it was done.

Well, tried it just once and came close , 60-57. I played haphazzardly though, let the AI chose my army an didnt even deploy beyond the default.
My cavalry dominated and destroyed all the Scottish cavalry , artillery and light troops and highlanders, the problem is the AI had enough kiels to chase down many of my victorious cavalry(now out of my control) and hit em in the rear etc.
More judicious use of my cavalry and holding back my infantry more until I could use both arms in coordination likely would have garnered an albeit hard fought victory

[rbodleyscott]

The early Elizabethan English army list In Tercio to Salvo is not the same army that fought at Flodden or Pinkie. Those armies would have separate billmen and archer units. Tercio to Salvo does not cover that period.

[simacole]

I understand that. However, its difficult to believe that the Scottish pikes had become that more effective in the course of 15 years. Come to think of it is, difficult to think of a united Scottish army including Catholic highlanders and protestant lowland Scottish pike after 1560. Scotland effectively entered a period of low intensity civil war. The siege of Leith pitched French troops backing Mary of Guise against an Elizabethan English army. The loyalties of Scots were seriously divided.

I'd be interested to hear what the basis for the from Tercio to Salvo Elizabethan army list is. I suspect it is largely based on records of the composition of the trained bands and maybe regiments dispatched to the low countries. However, I think there was an enormous amount of variety between, for example, English troops fighting in the low countries, the forces fighting what was effectively a low intensity guerrilla war against Desmond's rebellion in Ireland, and the forces stationed on the Scottish borders. In the early Elizabethan period it is clear that the company was a much more important unit than the regiment. What passed for regiments was often a temporary grouping of companies organised around a captain. It's difficult to believe they wouldn't have used detached units of shot. We know mixed companies or bows arquebus and caliver existed. We also know for a certainty that separate bands of archer mounted-infantry were used in Elizabeth's wars in Ireland. There were complaints that some of them could hardly ride their horses. On the other hand, the very effective, in Ireland at least, border horse were definitely armed with wheelock pistols or carbines as well as a lance in this period. In earlier periods many of them also carried missile weapons, either the longbow, or the small latched crossbow though it is open to question to what extent they could tactically use these weapons in a battle.The big problem with the Elizabethan army in Tercio to Salvo is that apart from one unit of petronels completely lacks missile cavalry and skirmishing foot. I don't think this can be justified by the military history of the period.

[simacole]

Of course what I would really appreciate is an extension that includes army lists for battles in the British Isles from the time of the Italian wars.

[rbodleyscott]

Of course what I would really appreciate is an extension that includes army lists for battles in the British Isles from the time of the Italian wars.

Agreed, but there is nothing to stop you writing one. The army lists are easy to write, the unit models you would need are all there, and the textures that you would need are nearly all there already and are pretty easy to mod for those that aren't. You would need to add some differently equipped units to the squads file but that isn't hard to do.

Odenathus has already written several scenarios of battles in Ireland, though he was using the vanilla rules at the time. They are downloadable in-game.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd be interested to hear what the basis for the from Tercio to Salvo Elizabethan army list is. I suspect it is largely based on records of the composition of the trained bands and maybe regiments dispatched to the low countries.

I think that is right. It is based on the FOGR list, which was I think written from the above information.

However, FOGR does allow shot to be detached from the big regiments at deployment time, which does alter the character of the army.

We will add tweaking that list a bit (a lot) to the wishlist for the next update.

[Miletus]

I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by how easily the Scots can overpower the English, with their pike keils acting as Swiss-style steam-rollers! I've only tried the English a couple of times, but I can't really see how it's possible to win with them. Even taking out most of the non-keil Scots by judicious use of the English mounted still isn't enough to prevent the Scots winning through sheer attrition.

I'll freely admit that it could just be down to me being a bit crap at the game, despite enjoying it immensely! But I'm wondering if the English v Scots skirmish mode has been play-tested, e.g. by Richard?

Any thoughts/feedback very welcome!!!

[rbodleyscott]

The Elizabethan English army is assumed to be a rather inexperienced and hence poor home defence force. If they had had to fight the Scots (or anyone) regularly they would have improved. There was no standing army, and the feudal system was dead, although the armies in Ireland would presumably have been better.

The earlier English armies in the forthcoming Pike and Shot Campaigns are rather better.

I recommend trying Odenathus' Pinkie scenario (downloadable in-game) if you think the Scots beat the English too easily.

Eleven years of peace, however, is more than enough time for an army to lose its edge.

However, even in the days when the Scots and English were fighting regularly, the English usually beat the Scots by turning the terrain to their advantage - as at Halidon Hill, Flodden etc.

[Miletus]

Er...okay. But there's a difference between an army losing its edge and actually being incapable of winning a battle! That's why I was wondering if you'd had any success with it against the Scots yourself.

[rbodleyscott]

Er...okay. But there's a difference between an army losing its edge and actually being incapable of winning a battle! That's why I was wondering if you'd had any success with it against the Scots yourself.

Not much, but should I have? The Elizabethan army is an obsolete pile of crap, which it must be if we are being true to history. It is perhaps a pity that the army lists overlap since the English did not fight the Scots in this period..

I have played the Pinkie scenario both ways however, MP, and the English won both rather easily.

[Miletus]

Is that "not much" as in none? ;o)

[rbodleyscott]

Is that "not much" as in none? ;o)

No, but the Scots army is the better of the two. See edited posts above.

[Miletus]

OK Richard. I still get the feeling that using the armies available in Skirmish mode it *may* simply be impossible for the English to beat the Scots. That's why I'd like to know whether anyone has managed it. If not, then playing that particular match-up is simply a waste of time, isn't it?

[simacole]

The Odenaus' Pinkie extension is fun. He also included unit types like longbow armed dragoons and detached shot that I suggested should form part of the army list. I accept Richard's point that the Elizabethan army wasn't very good. It wasn't a feudal army and it had not yet become any kind of standing army. However, in the clashes with the Scots at the end of Henry's reign and in Edward's reign they made widespread use of mercenaries. We know they did use missile armed cavalry and skirmishers in Ireland. While this may not have been reflected in the trained bands, it should be included in any army list for the period.

While there was no English/Scottish fighting in the period, the English did take on the French on Scottish soil, in the siege of Leith at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. 2,000 Scottish mercenaries fought with the English against Mary of Guise. This is the point where I disagree with Richard strongly, in particular his statement that the Scottish army of the period was better. The army list for the Scottish forces is in reality from the Pinkie period. In the later period their was no prospect of any kind of unified Scottish force actually confronting the English. With the Scottish reformation there was the rise of a pro-English party. This was apparent much earlier, and a major factor in the Scottish defeat by a much smaller English force at Solway Moss. Napoleon was right that in battle the moral is to the physical as three is to one. The idea that there was some strong national Scottish army, with pike that perform like the Swiss, capable of confronting the weakened Elizabethan army of the period is, in my view, historically indefensible. By the time of the siege of Leith, there were many Scots prepared to fight for the English in the interests of the Protestant cause against the Catholic French represented by Mary of Guise. Any army list for a hypothetical Scottish/English battle of the period should reflect the fact that large numbers of those protestant Scottish pike, though they would have been nowhere near as effective as the Swiss, would be fighting on the English side and that any Scottish national army would have had seriously divided loyalties.

[rbodleyscott]

While there was no English/Scottish fighting in the period, the English did take on the French on Scottish soil, in the siege of Leith at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. 2,000 Scottish mercenaries fought with the English against Mary of Guise. This is the point where I disagree with Richard strongly, in particular his statement that the Scottish army of the period was better.

I made no statement that the Scottish army of the period was better. I was referring to the matchup in-game, where, as you point out, the Scottish advantage results from a mismatch in the periods represented by the lists (see below).

The army list for the Scottish forces is in reality from the Pinkie period. In the later period their was no prospect of any kind of unified Scottish force actually confronting the English.

I agree, on both counts.

The idea that there was some strong national Scottish army, with pike that perform like the Swiss, capable of confronting the weakened Elizabethan army of the period is, in my view, historically indefensible.

Agreed. The mistake was including in Tercio to Salvo the Scottish list based on the tail end of the FOGR list, which does not take this probable deterioration into account for the Scots.

Although the Scots pikes in the list are in fact nothing like as good as Swiss, or even Landsknechts. Because they lack armour, they will be slightly better than Raw Italian/French pikemen at impact and equal to those in melee.

To make the matchup fair, however, they should have been downgraded to Raw.

By the time of the siege of Leith, there were many Scots prepared to fight for the English in the interests of the Protestant cause against the Catholic French represented by Mary of Guise. Any army list for a hypothetical Scottish/English battle of the period should reflect the fact that large numbers of those protestant Scottish pike, though they would have been nowhere near as effective as the Swiss, would be fighting on the English side and that any Scottish national army would have had seriously divided loyalties.

Fair enough.

[rbodleyscott]

OK Richard. I still get the feeling that using the armies available in Skirmish mode it *may* simply be impossible for the English to beat the Scots. That's why I'd like to know whether anyone has managed it. If not, then playing that particular match-up is simply a waste of time, isn't it?

Impossible is a strong word. Challenging might be more apt.

[Miletus]

To make the matchup fair, however, they should have been downgraded to Raw.

I suspect I'll go down that route in a tweaked version of the army list.