DBA-RRR Issue re Huguenots 1585-98

[Snowcat]

Hi

I'd like to present 2 main issues I see with the I/45 French Huguenot list. Both stem from the breakdown of the DBR List for Huguenots (specifically 1585-98) and the way Huguenot Cuirassiers are treated.

Part 1:
The first part is what I consider an erroneous army list, as it does not seem to be aware of the equestrian army of Henri IV at all; basically the inaccurate inclusion of compulsory foot (specifically Pk) for the period 1585-98. Henri's army for this period was often (usually) entirely mounted (including the arquebusiers), which allowed him to ride rings around his opponents. This is easily fixed in DBA-RRR by substituting 1 Sh/Dr for the compulsory 1 Pk. I thoroughly recommend reading the article: 'All The King's Horsemen': The Equestrian Army of Henri IV, 1585-1598 by Ronald S. Love (Sixteenth Century Journal XXII/3 1991). I own an electronic copy and am happy to send it to anyone interested. Just ask and I'll email it to you.

Part 2:
Now this is where I would really like someone to read the above article and then explain to me that the current classification of Huguenot Cuirassiers for the period 1585-98 works appropriately as Pi. My understanding is that currently Gendarmes (Kn) will QK the Cuirassiers (Pi), the latter's only hope lying in their doubling up (2 elements deep) to gain a 5:4 edge, this being reduced back to 4:4 by the likelihood of an enemy overlap (eg another Kn element). In other words, on equal ground, the Huguenot Cuirassiers are dead meat. Historically, the Huguenot Cuirassiers formed up narrow and deep against the wider and shallower enemy Gendarmes. The result time and time again was a hole blown through the Gendarme line and defeat of the Gendarmes. In fact, the historical record reads a lot more like the Huguenot Pi QK'ing the Kn, and the Kn QK against them (including any overlap) being null and void. What part did supporting troops play in this? Well, as both sides had them, their influence on these outcomes is difficult to gauge. Did the Huguenot Cuirassier success rely heavily on the disruption caused by their skirmishing arquebusiers? Or was it largely due to their tendency to charge after the enemy had already first committed themselves?

Perhaps I'm missing something subtle in the relevant combat mechanics, but on the surface it appears to be around the wrong way. :)

I look forward to your replies.

Cheers

[Tony Aguilar]

I'd like to present 2 main issues I see with the I/45 French Huguenot list. Both stem from the breakdown of the DBR List for Huguenots (specifically 1585-98) and the way Huguenot Cuirassiers are treated.



I will check this out during my lunch break, but if the list is erroneous in DBR, then there isn't much I can do. The classifications are based on the troop types listed in DBR. DBA-RRR is a simplified addition of renaissance elements into the DBA system. Certainly there might be more period accurate rules out there, but none that give you results in this a short a period of time.

[Snowcat]

Thanks Tony.

I can fix the army list myself with a simple house rule. But the combat dynamics appear so far removed from the historic record (as far as I can see) that at present I'd be inclined to avoid using this army (1585-98) altogether. :(

Let me know if you need the article sent to you. :)

[Tony Aguilar]

Thanks Tony.

I can fix the army list myself with a simple house rule. But the combat dynamics appear so far removed from the historic record (as far as I can see) that at present I'd be inclined to avoid using this army (1585-98) altogether. :(

Let me know if you need the article sent to you. :)

Feel free to send me this article, as I am always interested in this period. My email is schutzengruppe@bellsouth.net

Keep in mind on the DBA-RRR play chart, that Pistols also get flank support of +1 vs. all mounted if they are flanked by either Shot or Dragoons. SO fighting Kn (which are +4 vs. mounted) the Pistols could be 4+1 (rear support by another Pi) and +1 (flank support by Shot or Dr) = 6

[Snowcat]

Yes, but equally, with the Pistols having doubled up, the enemy Knights should have an element of their own spare so...you get the idea. :)

Will send the article now. :)

[Tony Aguilar]

Yes, but equally, with the Pistols having doubled up, the enemy Knights should have an element of their own spare so...you get the idea. :)


I understand, it is a similar issue with using a phalanx. Concentrate in one area and play "keep away" somewhere else. ;)

[Snowcat]

It's on its way!

Enjoy the read. :)

[Kontos]

Here I go again - the voice of caution (and probably dissension). :D

I always urge that the effect of changing one rule be put in the bigger picture and how it will affect the game overall. Yes, what you say is probably true that Henry's pistols were dominant against THAT opponent's knights. Were ALL pistol that successful against ALL other knights? Should we make a consideration for Roman blade always beating the starch out of Egyptian blade? Staying in the period, the Polish Hussars were THE dominant cavalry force for years. Charles modelled the Swedish cavalry after the Polish Hussars and he became the dominant force in Europe. The game has them as Knights like everyone else. Should we change their rules? I hope you see my point. In a game like DBA so much of the effectiveness of any unit type across the broad span of history is based on the players' talent and the random generator - the die. Tweaking your army list for a one-off battle against their historical opponent is fine. We all do it for specialty games, but I hesitate to change anything that impacts every army list and the game overall. Just my 2 cents.

frank

[Tony Aguilar]

Will send the article now. :)

Thanks, Snowcat. I will check it out...looks real good.
Too bad the the Journal of Sixteenth Century is prohibitively expensive to join.

[Rich Gause]

I would like to see the article also if someone can send it to rg1066@aol.com thanks.

[Tony Aguilar]

I would like to see the article also if someone can send it to rg1066@aol.com thanks.

Sent. Enjoy.

[Snowcat]

Here I go again - the voice of caution (and probably dissension). :D

I always urge that the effect of changing one rule be put in the bigger picture and how it will affect the game overall. Yes, what you say is probably true that Henry's pistols were dominant against THAT opponent's knights. Were ALL pistol that successful against ALL other knights?
frank

I hear what you're saying, and I agree up to a point - it's DBA after all. :)
But Henri's cuirassiers did it to the French Catholics and the Spanish and anyone else they met. It heralded the end of the knight and the beginning of the true cuirassier. As for other Pistols, the later cuirassiers who followed Henri's example certainly learned from him.

But yes, we already have a Pictish Ax(X) being treated the same as a Spartan hoplite, sooo .... ;)

Like I said, without a rule change, I just wouldn't play this army (1585-98) in this system. No great loss (but possibly an opportunity lost?).

[Kontos]

SO introducing a new element for local games and playtesting in the latter part of this period might be cuirassier? One that QK knights? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

;)

Frank

[Snowcat]

Now yer talkin'!

(Of course someone will find exceptions to that rule too...)

:)

[winterbadger]

Who else, in this period, fielded Kn against Pi? What happened? Maybe the dynamic that needs to be adjusted *is* all Pi v. Kn, not just a special case. After all, while I'm racking my brain to think of examples, I *do* know that Kn pretty much died out in Western armies, while Pi kept going, with some changes, well into the 18th century.

I don't know much about the Swedish cavalry under Karl IX, but the cavalry that his son conquered Europe with are definitely Pi, not Kn, in DBR and in DBA-RRR. They were not *modeled after* the husaria, they were *inspired* by them. No huge, medieval lances, no 3/4 plate, no swiss-army-knife collection of weapons. They were lightly armoured horse who relied on pistols and a *disciplined* charge to defeat their enemies.

I think it may also be unnecessary to represent the narrow formation of Pi caracoles with DBA elements. After all, remember that these are very large bodies of troops. We don't represent a lot of the tactical formations of ancient troops in DBA (I remember my introduction to anc/med gaming in WRG 5th?, with wedges, rhomoids, and circles being eagerly described in the rules).

[Terry37]

I think there is one aspect being missed in this Cuirassier versus Pistoliers. Typically the Cuirassiers/Knights would charge home while Pistoliers typically stood at the halt and discharged their pistols into the oncoming enemy. I believe this is why you have the Cuirasseirs/Knights so powerful over the Pistoliers.

In the ECW Prince Rupert brought this charging home tactic to the Royalist Horse which allowed them to normally defeat the Roundhead horse, prior to the New Model Army, who were more prone to use the outdated tactic of standing at the halt and firing into the attacking enemy Horse.

I also agree with Frank's comment about what is the down stream affect of changing a rule. We tried that in some of our early Mesoamerican games to "capture" the armies and found they just ruined the whole game, and ended up dropping them all; playing the game using the rules as written (DBA-HX), which made for some really fun games.

My two cents anyway.

Tony, I would love a copy of the article as well, if you would not mind sending it to me. Thanks!

Terry

[Snowcat]

I think there is one aspect being missed in this Cuirassier versus Pistoliers. Typically the Cuirassiers/Knights would charge home while Pistoliers typically stood at the halt and discharged their pistols into the oncoming enemy. I believe this is why you have the Cuirasseirs/Knights so powerful over the Pistoliers.

Terry

Terry, I don't think anyone is missing that point. As we all realise, these 'Cuirassiers' are currently graded as Pistols. Please show me the troops graded as Cuirassiers! There are none. The DBA-RRR class doesn't exist. :)

What I think is missing is a way of treating these hard-charging cuirassiers a little more like Kn (or perhaps nullifying the Kn QK aginst them). Something simple. The main problem I see is that it would only really apply to the original Pi(S) subclass; how you translate that to DBA-RRR is an issue.

[Tony Aguilar]

Tony, I would love a copy of the article as well, if you would not mind sending it to me. Thanks!

Terry

Sent. Enjoy!

[Snowcat]

The simplest solution I can think of so far is this: double-ranked Pi [referred to as cuirassiers in the Army List] are not QK by Kn.

It represents only 1 change, that being a 1-line entry to the QRS. :)

[Tony Aguilar]

The problem for DBA-RRR is the Pi(S) bit. :)

I am aware that some simplifications are necessary in DBA-RRR, but it seems that for some reason many prefer to play only a certain time frame within 1500-1700 and want the rules to work within their favorite period. (whether it be Italian Wars, ECW, 30YW etc..) Although I can sympathize with wanting to be accurate, lumping "similar" types of units together into a category is one of the trademarks of DBA. Just as there are generalizations when it comes to Pi (S), there are also ones in Ln (F), Pi (I), LH (I), Ps (X) etc. I certainly can live with these, when units such as 3Bd, 3Sp, 8Bw, 6Kn and so forth are treated equally with other units of their same type in DBA. Just as Frank mentioned with Blades, they are lumped all together into one category. In no way am I buying that Egyptian, Roman, Viking, and Samurai Blades all fought in the same manner.

[Snowcat]

I am aware that some simplifications are necessary in DBA-RRR, but it seems that for some reason many prefer to play only a certain time frame within 1500-1700 and want the rules to work within their favorite period. (whether it be Italian Wars, ECW, 30YW etc..) Although I can sympathize with wanting to be accurate, lumping "similar" types of units together into a category is one of the trademarks of DBA. Just as there are generalizations when it comes to Pi (S), there are also ones in Ln (F), Pi (I), LH (I), Ps (X) etc. I certainly can live with these, when units such as 3Bd, 3Sp, 8Bw, 6Kn and so forth are treated equally with other units of their same type in DBA. Just as Frank mentioned with Blades, they are lumped all together into one category. In no way am I buying that Egyptian, Roman, Viking, and Samurai Blades all fought in the same manner.

Check my edit. :)

The simplest solution I can think of so far is this: double-ranked Pi [referred to as Cuirassiers in the Army List] are not QK by Kn.

It represents only 1 change, that being a 1-line entry to the QRS.

[Snowcat]

This is what I would propose for a more accurate Huguenot list:

I/45 French Huguenot. 1562-1598 AD

(a) as listed.

(b) 1576-1588 AD:
1 Pi (g) Cuirassiers
1 Pi Cuirassiers
2 Sh or Dr Huguenot arquebusiers or arquebusiers mounted on country nags

then 8 from:
2 Pi Cuirassiers
2 Cv Reiters
2 LH Argoulets or Carabins
2 Pk Landsknecht pikemen
4 Sh or Dr Huguenot arquebusiers or arquebusiers mounted on country nags (must take same as in core)
1 Sh or Sk Enfants perdus
1 Art Field guns
Note: Prior to 1585 there is a greater likelihood of Pk being included.

(c) 1589-1598 AD:
1 Pi (g) Cuirassiers
1 Pi Cuirassiers
4 Sh or Dr Huguenot arquebusiers or arquebusiers mounted on country nags

then 6 from:
2 Pi Cuirassiers
2 Cv Reiters
2 LH Argoulets or Carabins
2 Pk Landsknecht pikemen
2 Pk Royal Swiss pikemen
1 Sh or Sk Royal Swiss arquebusiers
2 Sh or 2 Dr Huguenot arquebusiers or arquebusiers mounted on country nags (must take same as in core)
1 (Pk + Sh) French Royal Foot
1 Sh or Sk Enfants perdus
1 Art Field guns

[Tony Aguilar]

Unfortunately, the changes that you suggested are not based on the DBR books. In the event that the books are revised by the addition of a new edition, I would make changes at that point. I can not start changing the army lists every month based on different sources. Several people have tried to make the same argument of changing army list for the English Civil War armies and I have had to deny the same request. In understand that DBR may not be 100% accurate, but tinkering and double guessing army lists is a “slippery slope” that I am not willing to get involved in. Feel free to make the changes that you find appropriate in your friendly games.

[Snowcat]

Yes, I realise I am banging my head against a wall with respect to 'official changes'; nevertheless the exercise has been worthwhile for myself and hopefully to a few others as a way of playing hard-charging renaissance cuirassiers somewhat more realistically within friendly games of DBA-RRR, and via the article I offered a particularly enlightening read on Henri IV's Huguenot army and its actual composition. Besides, there's always Basic Impetus Baroque... ;)

[winterbadger]

Yes, I realise I am banging my head against a wall with respect to 'official changes'; nevertheless the exercise has been worthwhile for myself and hopefully to a few others as a way of playing hard-charging renaissance cuirassiers somewhat more realistically within friendly games of DBA-RRR, and via the article I offered a particularly enlightening read on Henri IV's Huguenot army and its actual composition. Besides, there's always Basic Impetus Baroque... ;)

Since the whole DBA-RRR project is unofficial (given Phil's feelings about the WADBAG Unofficial Guide, I can just imagine what he'd say about this ;)) house rules are just as official as anything else.

Same thing goes for Terry's remarks how his group found that playing the rules as written without making changes was the best solution--of course the "rules" he's referring to, the Humberside Extensions, ARE a set of changes to DBA. The lovely irony of it all! :D

So thanks for bringing up the topic, Snowcat. Among other things, it's made me get my copy of Delbrueck off the shelf, and his discussion of cavalry versus knights is very enlightening...

[Kontos]

So thanks for bringing up the topic, Snowcat. Among other things, it's made me get my copy of Delbrueck off the shelf, and his discussion of cavalry versus knights is very enlightening...

Do I need a library card for all the books I am borrowing from you? I would like to read Delbreuck when you are finished with it. :)

Frank

[winterbadger]

Do I need a library card for all the books I am borrowing from you? I would like to read Delbreuck when you are finished with it. :)

Frank

You'd be quite welcome; I only have Volume Four, but it's the bit that's relevant to this discussion ("The Modern Era"--that is to say, the Renaissance through the Napoleonic Wars).

For starters I could copy out the section on cavalry v. chivalry; it's about 20 pages.

[Rich Gause]

Check my edit. :)

The simplest solution I can think of so far is this: double-ranked Pi [referred to as Cuirassiers in the Army List] are not QK by Kn.

It represents only 1 change, that being a 1-line entry to the QRS.

I think the rules play fine as is and are about as close as you can get to a simplified DBR that plays like DBA. That change would make all Kn inferior in almost every way to all Pi across the entire period and reading Phils descriptions in DBR do not give me the impression that that was his intent. Right now the Pi start as a +4 have the option to be +5 for rear support, and the Kn get a -1 if the Pi are flanked by shot or dragoons. My favorite of my 4 DBA-RRR armies is my Swedes and I usually take them as the option with Pi rather than Kn because I use them as a combined arms army and the Pi are superior to Kn for that IMO. Yeah the Kn have a quick kill but he will be a +3 to my +5 and he will be lucky if I can't get a couple of overlaps and knock that down to a +1 to my +5. Starts to look suspiciously like the blade vs warband matchup. Yeah the Wb have a quick kill vs the Bd but they seem to get killed more than they kill. I looked at the Hugenot list and I wouldn't have any problem playing the French Catholic list with them. If you want to make special house rules to specifically cover one army match up go right ahead but right now the rules seem to work fine to play that Hugenot list against anybody from I/1 Italian Condotta 1494 to III/46 Later Polish 1700 and I would just as soon see them stay that way rather than make Pi the uber unit that you have to have to have to have a good army.

[mellis1644]

Yes, I realise I am banging my head against a wall with respect to 'official changes'; nevertheless the exercise has been worthwhile for myself and hopefully to a few others as a way of playing hard-charging renaissance cuirassiers somewhat more realistically within friendly games of DBA-RRR, and via the article I offered a particularly enlightening read on Henri IV's Huguenot army and its actual composition. Besides, there's always Basic Impetus Baroque... ;)

You have hit the same argument/thoughts that I did. The late 16th and early 17th cent mounted interactions have their issues in DBR and DBA-RRR. :(

Being strictly based on DBR v2 but with DBA style factors means the issues with DBR Pi are compounded when moved to DBA. DBR actually has less issues than DBA-RRR as the combat factors are different. :)

In DBR the authors took one view of how to reflect these troops when modeling history, which is great but not everyone or all historical authors agree with the view taken. I can see their view point, and writing games/rules is very hard, but I'm just not completely sold on the final result it as it makes for a poor model of history.

In DBA-RRR the pistol troops which fought badly vs 'knights' are classes as Cv not Pi. But this leaves little room for the Pi in combat factors. The pre-Phil/DBR WRG rules (Gush) had a IMO a better reflection of the interactions than these troop types. However, I take nothing away from the efforts/work put into these rules, but this aspect just does not fit with me.

You can ignore this (or may not find it an issue) and just play the game knowing it's limits or you can tweak the DBA-RRR rules (house rules for example to remove the Pi QK by Kn's, give Pi an additional +1 or 2 vs Kn's only, or allow all Pi to be Cv elements instead) which sort of balance the rules and reflect history better.

Alternatively, as you say there are also other rules system which does not have this very specific view of this combat interaction - Basic Impetus Baroque for example.

Mark

[Rich Gause]

Phil Barker ultimately decided what the DBA and DBR rules and army lists say and he decided that the Hugenots should be mostly Pi and that Kn should get quick kills against them. DBA-RRR is an attempt to make DBA playable upto 1700 using a methodology of no changes to DBA rules, modifying DBR as best as we could and converting the DBR army lists to 12 element DBA lists. Now that does mean painting with a broad brush and it also means that you might miss out on some nuances that you would get in a period specific set of rules. If you want to specifically fight the French religious wars between Catholics and Hugenots with more detail then you can make whatever house rules you want or play a different set of rules. If you want a set of rules where you can have any army from 1500-1700 play against any other and even have them go up against any DBA army and have a fun game that works and finishes in about an hour or less that most anybody who has played DBA already knows how to play then give DBA-RRR a try. Maybe Hugenot Curasiers were better than other troops rated as Pi but just like in DBA a Hittite footsoldier, a Spartan hoplite , a Pictish warrior and a Saxon fyrdsman are all Sp and treated the same but the game somehow seems to work anyway.

[winterbadger]

Never really sure why there is always such a strong negative reaction to questions or suggestions to change things. It mystifies me.

[Tony Aguilar]

Never really sure why there is always such a strong negative reaction to questions or suggestions to change things. It mystifies me.

Not sure what you mean by this, Jan. Certainly you are not suggesting that I have been less than polite in my responses. ?

[Rich Gause]

Never really sure why there is always such a strong negative reaction to questions or suggestions to change things. It mystifies me.

I don't think it is a strong negative reaction to disagree with a suggestion and to try to explain in some detail why I disagree with said suggestion; or to answer a question in a way that shows that there is a reason that something is the way that it is rather than how the questioner appears to want it to be. I don't think Tony or I have been uncivil to anybody at any time responding to anybody about anything having to do with DBA-RRR. If somebody would make a suggestion that is well thought out, falls within the design parameters of the game, and makes the game play better I would be trying to convince Tony to add it to the list of changes to be made for the next version.

[winterbadger]

Not sure what you mean by this, Jan. Certainly you are not suggesting that I have been less than polite in my responses. ?

I didn't say anyone was being less than polite. I just saw a lot of strong negative reaction to Snowcat's (and then Mark's) comments. And it always puzzles me that people seem to feel so threatened and disturbed by people suggesting changes, especially to rules that are themselves changes of other rules. I mean, it's just a game, right?

[Rich Gause]

I didn't say anyone was being less than polite. I just saw a lot of strong negative reaction to Snowcat's (and then Mark's) comments. And it always puzzles me that people seem to feel so threatened and disturbed by people suggesting changes, especially to rules that are themselves changes of other rules. I mean, it's just a game, right?

You seem to be mistaking simple disagreement with feeling threatened and disturbed or having a negative reaction. Tony and I both have repeatedly told people to do whatever they wanted. If somebody wants Tony to change the DBA-RRR rules or army lists then they have to convince him to do it. Just because people have not done a very good job of making a case for a change doesn't mean that anybody is "threatened, disturbed, or has a strong negative reaction".

[Pavane]

Never really sure why there is always such a strong negative reaction to questions or suggestions to change things. It mystifies me.
I've bugged Rich and Tony a lot about the RRR rules and they have always listened. Ninety-five percent of the time I have been in agreement once they reviewed the rationale of their design decision in detail. This was not a simple and straight forward conversion of the DBR rules, and it must become a little tiresome for them to have to frequently defend those decisions.

[Snowcat]

I think the rules play fine as is and are about as close as you can get to a simplified DBR that plays like DBA. That change would make all Kn inferior in almost every way to all Pi across the entire period and reading Phils descriptions in DBR do not give me the impression that that was his intent. Right now the Pi start as a +4 have the option to be +5 for rear support, and the Kn get a -1 if the Pi are flanked by shot or dragoons. My favorite of my 4 DBA-RRR armies is my Swedes and I usually take them as the option with Pi rather than Kn because I use them as a combined arms army and the Pi are superior to Kn for that IMO. Yeah the Kn have a quick kill but he will be a +3 to my +5 and he will be lucky if I can't get a couple of overlaps and knock that down to a +1 to my +5. Starts to look suspiciously like the blade vs warband matchup. Yeah the Wb have a quick kill vs the Bd but they seem to get killed more than they kill. I looked at the Hugenot list and I wouldn't have any problem playing the French Catholic list with them. If you want to make special house rules to specifically cover one army match up go right ahead but right now the rules seem to work fine to play that Hugenot list against anybody from I/1 Italian Condotta 1494 to III/46 Later Polish 1700 and I would just as soon see them stay that way rather than make Pi the uber unit that you have to have to have to have a good army.

Rich, I'm not quite convinced by this. I almost was, but: for starters wouldn't it be Kn+4 vs Pi(2deep)+5, which leaves the Kn player with a spare element to maneuver/overlap with, not the Pi player? To then state that you can get the Kn player down to Kn+1 to Pi+5 with overlaps seems pretty wishful thinking. What do you do to achieve this? Set your opponent in concrete first so that he can't move anything against you?! :)

Secondly, you say "That change would make all Kn inferior in almost every way to all Pi across the entire period...". How exactly, when the only Pi benefiting from this change are those referred to as *Cuirassiers* in their army list, and only if they double-rank? If you think the suggestion makes those particular Pi too strong v Kn, fine, but not *all* Pi by your above implication.

I get the impression that the folks who received the article had already decided 'no change' in advance of reading it, ie eager to have the article, none too eager to make a change. :) Have you read the article? Like I said at the start, I'd like someone who has read the article to tell me that the current Kn/Pi interaction correctly models the historic record for these cuirassiers v knights. The same record that clearly shows the army list for the specified period to be erroneous (missing the whole 'mounted army' concept).

Obviously I understand that a simple set of rules can't be all things to all people, and that I can play my own house rules - as I've already said - but I'm unconvinced by the responses so far that the current DBA-RRR (and DBR for that matter) provides an accurate simulation of this particular interaction. Therein lies the problem: my beef is essentially with DBR on this, so it can only follow that I'll have this issue with DBA-RRR.

So what to do? Easy, like I said: house rules. Or when not playing a friendly game (shouldn't all games be friendly? heh), use a different army if it's such a big deal to me. No problem. There's how many to choose from?! :)

Or someone can convince me that the way it currently is, is right (not just for the overall DBAesque wellbeing of the game - but *right*). You almost did with the combined arms approach (as to some extent this is supported by the article), but those factors you quoted looked a bit, well, *wishful*.

:)

[Snowcat]

And for the short version...

I'd be interested if someone who has read the article believes that it *does* demonstrate the cuirassier (Pi) success hinging on the flank support of Sh/Dr, rather than the inherent power of the cuirassiers. In which case , I get a Kn+2 v Pi+5 on this, and that becomes convincing (as Rich suggested).

(See...I'm coming around...!) :)

[winterbadger]

And for the short version...

I'd be interested if someone who has read the article believes that it *does* demonstrate the cuirassier (Pi) success hinging on the flank support of Sh/Dr, rather than the inherent power of the cuirassiers. In which case , I get a Kn+2 v Pi+5 on this, and that becomes convincing (as Rich suggested).

(See...I'm coming around...!) :)

Just to confuse things :silly what Delbrueck essentially said was that this matchup was debated during the period (that is, during the 16th century) a great deal, with a lot of the arguments turning on tactical points that are well below the level of detail we want to try to represent with figures on the tabletop. But that essentially while sometimes knights were able to sweep away cavalry (as he refers to mounted troops who used firepower instead of an impetuous charge), they were usually devastated by the fire of the cavalry, that their formations were so thin that when one point was penetrated by fire the rest could be exploited and rolled up, and that when knights tried to address their vulnerability by wearing heavier and heavier armour to ward off shot, they just eliminated their effectiveness in charging without getting enough protection.

The bottom line seems to be that Kn could occasionally beat Pi if they were lucky, but that more often Pi stopped them in their tracks, then broke through them and routed them. It's certainly true that as a type Kn pretty much cease to exist in Western Europe after the 16th century, supplanted by Pi. Of course, the "stand still and shoot" type of Pi eventually falls prey to Pi that charge in good order and use their firearms at close range, but the latter aren't really Kn in DBA terms, more like really good Cav.

[Snowcat]

Just to confuse things :silly what Delbrueck essentially said was that this matchup was debated during the period (that is, during the 16th century) a great deal, with a lot of the arguments turning on tactical points that are well below the level of detail we want to try to represent with figures on the tabletop. But that essentially while sometimes knights were able to sweep away cavalry (as he refers to mounted troops who used firepower instead of an impetuous charge), they were usually devastated by the fire of the cavalry, that their formations were so thin that when one point was penetrated by fire the rest could be exploited and rolled up, and that when knights tried to address their vulnerability by wearing heavier and heavier armour to ward off shot, they just eliminated their effectiveness in charging without getting enough protection.

The bottom line seems to be that Kn could occasionally beat Pi if they were lucky, but that more often Pi stopped them in their tracks, then broke through them and routed them. It's certainly true that as a type Kn pretty much cease to exist in Western Europe after the 16th century, supplanted by Pi. Of course, the "stand still and shoot" type of Pi eventually falls prey to Pi that charge in good order and use their firearms at close range, but the latter aren't really Kn in DBA terms, more like really good Cav.

And from that, the point is that the shot doing the damage was from the Pi, not supporting arquebusiers for instance?

Very interesting stuff. Might have to get me a copy of that book... :)

[winterbadger]

And from that, the point is that the shot doing the damage was from the Pi, not supporting arquebusiers for instance?

I'd have to read over it again to be sure, but yes. In fact, IIRC it's the knights who he says are bolstered by supporting troops, but only because the knights aren't whole units of nothing but guys in Maximillian armour, but one of those chaps to several lesser mortals.

Very interesting stuff. Might have to get me a copy of that book if it's in English (probably not)... :)

It is; it's even cheaper now it's available in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Modern-Warfare-History-Art/dp/0803265867/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264726374&sr=1-3), only $45 instead of the $75 my clothbound cost me (back in the 1990s...)

[Snowcat]

I'd have to read over it again to be sure, but yes. In fact, IIRC it's the knights who he says are bolstered by supporting troops, but only because the knights aren't whole units of nothing but guys in Maximillian armour, but one of those chaps to several lesser mortals.



It is; it's even cheaper now it's available in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Modern-Warfare-History-Art/dp/0803265867/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264726374&sr=1-3), only $45 instead of the $75 my clothbound cost me (back in the 1990s...)

How about $7.95 on eBay. :)

[winterbadger]

How about $7.95 on eBay. :)

That's excellent! There are also copies available through alibris (http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=1501242&matches=25&wquery=hans+delbruck&cm_sp=works*listing*title)at that price or close to it.

[Terry37]

"Terry, I don't think anyone is missing that point. As we all realise, these 'Cuirassiers' are currently graded as Pistols. Please show me the troops graded as Cuirassiers! There are none. The DBA-RRR class doesn't exist."

Snowcat, Re your post above, I have not really looked at the options in DBA-RRR because we play DBA-HX, and in those army lists there are still Knights listed in some of the armies. Thus my comment.

I think the difference between the two, Cuirassiers and Pistoliers, in DBA-HX is wither they followed the Swedish practice or the German practice. The Swedes charged home and the Germans stood and fired, or did carracole fire.

I think the rules are written to cover a larger span of time and armies, and if you want to try a more army or period specific version, then house modifications is the way to go.

Terry

[Snowcat]

"Terry, I don't think anyone is missing that point. As we all realise, these 'Cuirassiers' are currently graded as Pistols. Please show me the troops graded as Cuirassiers! There are none. The DBA-RRR class doesn't exist."

Snowcat, Re your post above, I have not really looked at the options in DBA-RRR because we play DBA-HX, and in those army lists there are still Knights listed in some of the armies. Thus my comment.

I think the difference between the two, Cuirassiers and Pistoliers, in DBA-HX is wither they followed the Swedish practice or the German practice. The Swedes charged home and the Germans stood and fired, or did carracole fire.

I think the rules are written to cover a larger span of time and armies, and if you want to try a more army or period specific version, then house modifications is the way to go.

Terry

Terry

Are you saying that in DBA-HX Swedish cuirassiers are graded as Kn? It appears so at first glance from the lists. I'd assumed they were in fact Knights, not cuirassiers graded as Kn.

Further to this. Here's the DBA-HX Huguenot list:

24 French Huguenot, 1562-1640. E=20,25,32a. 1x3Kn, 1x4Pi, 2x4Pi or 3Kn, 1x2LH, 2x4Sh, 2x4Sh/2Ps, 2x4Sh or 4Pk, 1Art.

What are the Kn representing? I presume Knights/Gendarmes, not an optional interpretation of hard-charging cuirassiers. The compulsory Pi I presume are reiters? The optional Pi are cuirassiers?
How does this work for 1585-98? I suspect it's wishful thinking on my part that Huguenot cuirassiers can be interpreted as Kn in this list; I doubt that was the intention.

[Terry37]

Snowcat,

The way I understand, and how we play the various types of Horse in DBA-HX, is that when Knights are allowed, they are those who charged home rather than firing from the halt and then charging. The later are Pistoliers. It is easy to confuse their dress or armor as to who they are in the rules, but I think you have to look at how they fought to best understand this. Having said that, my Roundheads have a 4 figure element of Cuirassiers who are Haselrig's Lobsters in 3/4 armor and armed with pistols and swords, and who serve as a Pistolier element in my morphed Imperial TYW army. They have this distinction because they are so armored, compared to other Horse types, as typically the Roundheads stood and fired and then charged. Therefore most of my other Roundhead Horse in armies prior to the New Model Army are Pistoliers.

At the same time my Royalist Horse, can be either Knights or Cav, as they typically charged and then fired their pistols once in melee.

Were I doing the French Huguenot army I would not have any problem with the Cuirassiers and Pistoliers looking exactly the same, but the Knights would be 3 figures per stand/element and the Pistoliers would be 4 figures per stand/element. But definitely the Cuirassiers would be gendarmes. Also, going from memory here, but if I remember correctly, the Huguenots had the bulk of the regular Gendarmes who sided with them. If you would be interested in my thoughts more specific to this army I will be happy to review the material I have on it and chat with you off line about it. It's an army I would like to do some time myself, so have a little on it.

We've found the DBA-HX rules to play very well, save some of the guys aren't totally happy with how artillery is done, but it doesn't bother me, and also the long flee distance of Dragoons, but again, it works OK for me.

In case you are interested, here are some reports of some of our ECW games using DBA-HX.

http://wargamers.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2272

http://wargamers.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1917

http://wargamers.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2345

http://wargamers.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1693

Terry

[Snowcat]

Terry

Very happy to chat re: Huguenots with you offline. I recommend you read the article first. :)

It sounds like you would indeed treat the Huguenot Kn as being the cuirassiers, very interesting. In the DBA-HX Huguenot list there are no Dr. Yet they exist in the DBA-RRR version. Odd?

[Snowcat]

Terry

I also have a vague memory of already sending you a copy of this article about a year ago...?

Thanks for the ECW reports; I'll read them later tonight.

:)

[winterbadger]

The way I understand, and how we play the various types of Horse in DBA-HX, is that when Knights are allowed, they are those who charged home rather than firing from the halt and then charging. The later are Pistoliers. It is easy to confuse their dress or armor as to who they are in the rules, but I think you have to look at how they fought to best understand this.

That last point is a very good one, particularly as "cuirassier" stopped being a word that described how troops were armoured and began to be a word that referred to how they fought.

I think a distinction still needs to be made, however, between troops who fought in heavy armour with lance and sword and exclusively charged, often from shallow formations (Lancers in DBR), troops who fought with pistol and sword but preferred to exchange a lengthy fire before engaging (Inferior Pistols in DBR), and those troops who fought with sword and pistol but engaged at moderate or high speed, using their pistols just prior to or in melee (all other Pistols in DBR). There was a distinct evolution, with the first class being overtaken by the second, and the second by the third. The third can't be treated as the same as the first, because then the first would never be beaten by the second.

I think Tony's got the right idea in using Kn, Cav, and Pi classes to cover these. I think the only problem is in the effects created by the combat factors and results. (Well, and his description of Pi as "These armored European horsemen carried pistols into combat and used massed fire to
decimate enemy units"; those are actually the Pi(I) he's classing as Cav).

In DBR, Ln QK Pi, but they also have +3 to +5 factor (using condensed scale, which DBA surely is). Plus, Pi(I) can shoot at Ln at range, giving them the opportunity to disrupt their formations and possibly get some overlaps.

By treating Pi(I) in DBA-RRR as Cav, they have +3 vs. the Kn +4 but don't get QK by Kn; but these are just the chaps who *should* be getting ridden down by knights who they don't disorder with fire. Whereas the other Pi, who should be much more effective against the Kn, are +4 to the Kn +4 and get QK by the Kn. This doesn't really seem to model either historical matchups *or* what one sees in DBR (to the extent they're different).

Looking a little further down the road to ECW, the idea of making Royalist horse Kn is a nice one, but without allowing Pi to QK other Pi or Kn (and leaving out all the odd numbered result or enemy bound results), you get a very one-sided result from the Pi v. Kn ECW matchup.

But one can't tinker with Cav to make that a better fit for Pi(I) without messing up the existing relationships with Cav in regular DBA. So, long story short, I think that trying to translate Pi(I) = Cav, Pi (S,O) = Pi, and both Ln and Pi (F) = Kn is simply trying to fit ten pounds of horses into a five pound bag. Ln = Kn, yes; Kn QK Pi, yes; but Pi need to have a significantly higher CV than Kn, Pi need to QK other Pi, and Pi(F) <> Kn. That makes Pi(F) too powerful versus other troops.

Also, off topic,why are dragoons and skirmishers not QK by LH in the open? That's a very odd thing.

[Rich Gause]

Rich, I'm not quite convinced by this. I almost was, but: for starters wouldn't it be Kn+4 vs Pi(2deep)+5, which leaves the Kn player with a spare element to maneuver/overlap with, not the Pi player? To then state that you can get the Kn player down to Kn+1 to Pi+5 with overlaps seems pretty wishful thinking. What do you do to achieve this? Set your opponent in concrete first so that he can't move anything against you?! :)

Secondly, you say "That change would make all Kn inferior in almost every way to all Pi across the entire period...". How exactly, when the only Pi benefiting from this change are those referred to as *Cuirassiers* in their army list, and only if they double-rank? If you think the suggestion makes those particular Pi too strong v Kn, fine, but not *all* Pi by your above implication.

I get the impression that the folks who received the article had already decided 'no change' in advance of reading it, ie eager to have the article, none too eager to make a change. :) Have you read the article? Like I said at the start, I'd like someone who has read the article to tell me that the current Kn/Pi interaction correctly models the historic record for these cuirassiers v knights. The same record that clearly shows the army list for the specified period to be erroneous (missing the whole 'mounted army' concept).

Obviously I understand that a simple set of rules can't be all things to all people, and that I can play my own house rules - as I've already said - but I'm unconvinced by the responses so far that the current DBA-RRR (and DBR for that matter) provides an accurate simulation of this particular interaction. Therein lies the problem: my beef is essentially with DBR on this, so it can only follow that I'll have this issue with DBA-RRR.

So what to do? Easy, like I said: house rules. Or when not playing a friendly game (shouldn't all games be friendly? heh), use a different army if it's such a big deal to me. No problem. There's how many to choose from?! :)

Or someone can convince me that the way it currently is, is right (not just for the overall DBAesque wellbeing of the game - but *right*). You almost did with the combined arms approach (as to some extent this is supported by the article), but those factors you quoted looked a bit, well, *wishful*.

:)

I just finished reading the article now. It was very interesting particularly in that my family name goes back to French Huguenots that left France after they lost. It seems after reading the article that the currassiers generally fought in a deep formation supported on the flanks by arquebussiers-a-cheval who were mounted infantry who used horses for strategic mobility but generally fought dismounted making them mostly shot but sometimes dragoons. I would be inclined to think that the closest fit to this in DBA-RRR would be Pi in two ranks with shot on the flanks. I could see an argument for DBR Pi(S) to have the option to be rated as Kn rather than Pi in RRR like we did with Pi(F) but I think they fit better as Pi than Kn. The question then becomes whether the factors and ratings are correct and whether changing them to make the Pi vs Kn matchup "better" can be done without making some other aspect of the game "worse" all this while keeping within the design parameters of DBA-RRR. One of the problems with a lot of the suggestions and ideas that I have heard regarding RRR is that a lot of the people making them seem to be unaware of what the parameters are, unwilling to stay within them if they are aware, or are seem perfectly willing to adopt a solution to fix whatever the issue they are concerened with by making a change that would have large consequences for some other aspect of the game. I think I will make another post probably in another thread that spells out what the DBA-RRR design is and some of the parameters it might take me a couple of days to do it.

[Rich Gause]

[QUOTE=winterbadger
Also, off topic,why are dragoons and skirmishers not QK by LH in the open? That's a very odd thing.[/QUOTE]

Because LH don't QK psiloi in DBA.

[mellis1644]

I have to agree with Winterbadger on many points but I will also say that even Phil, the rules author of DBR/DBA and knowledgeable person in both the rules and history can't decide how best to handle this interaction and change in fighting styles in the DBx rules engine. Each version of DBR has significantly changed the factors and rules around Pistol interactions- as well as many other things.

Presently there is a house rule for results Pi vs Pi results recommended by various people on the DBR list as the current version are still not balanced for game play or reflective of history. So don't necessarily expect a true and good simulation model from DBR - it has had quite a bit of play testing (one hopes) for these things and still has issues.

[Rich Gause]

Rich, I'm not quite convinced by this. I almost was, but: for starters wouldn't it be Kn+4 vs Pi(2deep)+5, which leaves the Kn player with a spare element to maneuver/overlap with, not the Pi player? To then state that you can get the Kn player down to Kn+1 to Pi+5 with overlaps seems pretty wishful thinking. What do you do to achieve this? Set your opponent in concrete first so that he can't move anything against you?! :)

...snip...

Or someone can convince me that the way it currently is, is right (not just for the overall DBAesque wellbeing of the game - but *right*). You almost did with the combined arms approach (as to some extent this is supported by the article), but those factors you quoted looked a bit, well, *wishful*.

:)

If I have a formation of Sh,Pi,Sh with the Pi in two ranks faced by a line of 3 Kn then the Kn will be +3 vs the Sh/Pi will be +5 with the Kn having quick kills on the Sh/Pi. The Kn will start at +4 vs the Pi +3 vs the SH and will be -1 vs the Pi for the Pi flank supported by Sh. The Sh will start at +4 and be +1 for the flank support by Pi. The Pi will start at +4 and be +1 for rear support. Now in that situation if the Kn win the first combat it can snowball in their favor but that is a 1/6 chance which is balanced by the 1/6 chance the Kn will be doubled and killed. There is a 1/9 chance of a draw the other 5/9 times the first Kn gets recoiled and the Kn players prospects quickly start to get worse and worse. Now yes the Pi player is using one more element which means the Kn player will be slightly stronger somewhere else but that can be countered by good use of terrain and maneuver etc... In this situation the Kn player better get up there and get stuck in quick and win that first combat because if he waits around the shot are going to start atritting him and his situation will go from unfavorable to very bad pretty quickly.

[Snowcat]

It seems after reading the article that the currassiers generally fought in a deep formation supported on the flanks by arquebussiers-a-cheval who were mounted infantry who used horses for strategic mobility but generally fought dismounted making them mostly shot but sometimes dragoons. I would be inclined to think that the closest fit to this in DBA-RRR would be Pi in two ranks with shot on the flanks.

OK, fair enough.

I could see an argument for DBR Pi(S) to have the option to be rated as Kn rather than Pi in RRR like we did with Pi(F) but I think they fit better as Pi than Kn.

What about the way Kn pursue recoiling enemy? Does this reflect the behaviour of Huguenot (and later fast-charging) cuirassiers? Or are they more disciplined like Pi?

The question then becomes whether the factors and ratings are correct

Are they?

...and whether changing them to make the Pi vs Kn matchup "better" can be done without making some other aspect of the game "worse" all this while keeping within the design parameters of DBA-RRR.

If "no" to the above question, then is it worth trying?

One of the problems with a lot of the suggestions and ideas that I have heard regarding RRR is that a lot of the people making them seem to be unaware of what the parameters are, unwilling to stay within them if they are aware, or are seem perfectly willing to adopt a solution to fix whatever the issue they are concerened with by making a change that would have large consequences for some other aspect of the game. I think I will make another post probably in another thread that spells out what the DBA-RRR design is and some of the parameters it might take me a couple of days to do it.

That's not surprising, as it's usually a focused historic point of study that brings about a perceived issue; fixing this becomes the primary goal. I'm more than happy, having raised a valid issue with some considered suggestions, to listen to the wider application of such 'fixes' and the consequences of them for the overall game. That way, a 'process' for potential improvement has begun. What would disappoint me is a blanket "nope, not going there; it's fine as it is" response when there may be good evidence to the contrary. Which returns us to your above question...are the factors and ratings correct if we agree that this particular cuirassier type is indeed Pi and not Kn?

:)

[winterbadger]

Because LH don't QK psiloi in DBA.

But they do in DBR. Makes it kind of hard to reconcile the two.

And that doesn't address Dr, which aren't in DBA.

[winterbadger]

What about the way Kn pursue recoiling enemy? Does this reflect the behaviour of Huguenot (and later fast-charging) cuirassiers? Or are they more disciplined like Pi?

I don't think cuirassiers were "fast charging". As in Phil's description of Pi(S), they charged at the trot. I think the only impetuous horse were the ones that are coded in DBR as Pi(F).

[Rich Gause]

But they do in DBR. Makes it kind of hard to reconcile the two.

Not really, since DBA-RRR is modified DBA with elements of DBR added in that means that nothing that already exists in DBA is changed and instead DBR elements are modified to fit into DBA which is one of the primary design parameters of DBA-RRR.

[Rich Gause]

DBA-RRR is primarily DBA with Pi, Sh, and Dr added and Ps modified into Sk by being given the ability to shoot. Dr were probably the most challenging element to add. It specifically does not have Unit quality ratings or bound specific quick kills. It derives its army lists directly from the DBR army lists with the unit type in some cases changing to a different type in DBA-RRR based on the DBR quality rating.

[Snowcat]

I don't think cuirassiers were "fast charging". As in Phil's description of Pi(S), they charged at the trot. I think the only impetuous horse were the ones that are coded in DBR as Pi(F).

In the article (p517) it states "What was unique to Henri was the way in which he trained and organised his squadrons in practice, combining the strength, weight and maneuverability of the Reiter-style formation of three hundred to six hundred men with the speed and shock value of the heavily armoured lancer, teaching them to charge home at the gallop with the sword alone."

There's plenty more about this in the article.

Would you like me to send you a copy? It's extremely good.

[winterbadger]

In the article (p517) it states "What was unique to Henri was the way in which he trained and organised his squadrons in practice, combining the strength, weight and maneuverability of the Reiter-style formation of three hundred to six hundred men with the speed and shock value of the heavily armoured lancer, teaching them to charge home at the gallop with the sword alone."

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the French did that.

Would you like me to send you the article? It's extremely good.

Yes, that would be great, thanks! winterbadger at gmail dot com

[Rich Gause]

Not really, since DBA-RRR is modified DBA with elements of DBR added in that means that nothing that already exists in DBA is changed and instead DBR elements are modified to fit into DBA which is one of the primary design parameters of DBA-RRR.

Also it works to play RRR armies against DBA armies you just have to decide which way to treat psiloi/skirmishers.

[winterbadger]

DBA-RRR is primarily DBA with Pi, Sh, and Dr added and Ps modified into Sk by being given the ability to shoot. Dr were probably the most challenging element to add. It specifically does not have Unit quality ratings or bound specific quick kills. It derives its army lists directly from the DBR army lists with the unit type in some cases changing to a different type in DBA-RRR based on the DBR quality rating.

But if you've already created a new troop type by modifying Ps into Sk by giving them shooting ability, why not treat them like DBR Sk in terms of their vulnerability to LH?

[Snowcat]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the French did that.



Yes, that would be great, thanks! winterbadger at gmail dot com

On its way!

:)

[Rich Gause]

But if you've already created a new troop type by modifying Ps into Sk by giving them shooting ability, why not treat them like DBR Sk in terms of their vulnerability to LH?

We still view them as psiloi and it would be hard to justify how skirmishers would have seperate quick kills than psiloi. Remember it is DBA not DBR. If you can convince Phil to give LH a quick kill on psiloi in the next version of DBA we would of course then change to that.

[Rich Gause]

And for the short version...

I'd be interested if someone who has read the article believes that it *does* demonstrate the cuirassier (Pi) success hinging on the flank support of Sh/Dr, rather than the inherent power of the cuirassiers. In which case , I get a Kn+2 v Pi+5 on this, and that becomes convincing (as Rich suggested).

(See...I'm coming around...!) :)

I read the article and it said the Huguenot army was anywhere from 2-1 to 4-1 arquebussiers to curassier. The notes at the bottom of p517 say at Courtrais and Ivry Henry had groups of arquebussiers between the units of cuirassiers. The article also mentioned that the Hugenot tactic was to let the Kn come towards them and then disrupt the charge with musket firefrom the shot followed by the Pi countercharging and this combined with the Kn starting their charge too early left them disrupted. It certainly sounds like a combined arms success with the musketry as a big part of the success. I could also certainly see grading the Huguenots as (S) and the Catholics as (I) if we did grading.

[Rich Gause]

I hear what you're saying, and I agree up to a point - it's DBA after all. :)
But Henri's cuirassiers did it to the French Catholics and the Spanish and anyone else they met. It heralded the end of the knight and the beginning of the true cuirassier. As for other Pistols, the later cuirassiers who followed Henri's example certainly learned from him.

But yes, we already have a Pictish Ax(X) being treated the same as a Spartan hoplite, sooo .... ;)

Like I said, without a rule change, I just wouldn't play this army (1585-98) in this system. No great loss (but possibly an opportunity lost?).

I think you should try playing the army and you might be surprised. I will eventually be painting a French Huguenot army and anticipate having lots of fun with them.

[Pavane]

I read the article and it said the Huguenot army was anywhere from 2-1 to 4-1 arquebussiers to curassier. The notes at the bottom of p517 say at Courtrais and Ivry Henry had groups of arquebussiers between the units of cuirassiers. The article also mentioned that the Hugenot tactic was to let the Kn come towards them and then disrupt the charge with musket firefrom the shot followed by the Pi countercharging and this combined with the Kn starting their charge too early left them disrupted. It certainly sounds like a combined arms success with the musketry as a big part of the success. I could also certainly see grading the Huguenots as (S) and the Catholics as (I) if we did grading.
That certainly sounds like Pi with Sh or Dr support to me. These tactics were use by Maurice of Nassau in the 80 Years War (Dutch Rebellion) and in the ECW.

[Rich Gause]

OK, fair enough.



What about the way Kn pursue recoiling enemy? Does this reflect the behaviour of Huguenot (and later fast-charging) cuirassiers? Or are they more disciplined like Pi?



Are they?



If "no" to the above question, then is it worth trying?



That's not surprising, as it's usually a focused historic point of study that brings about a perceived issue; fixing this becomes the primary goal. I'm more than happy, having raised a valid issue with some considered suggestions, to listen to the wider application of such 'fixes' and the consequences of them for the overall game. That way, a 'process' for potential improvement has begun. What would disappoint me is a blanket "nope, not going there; it's fine as it is" response when there may be good evidence to the contrary. Which returns us to your above question...are the factors and ratings correct if we agree that this particular cuirassier type is indeed Pi and not Kn?

:)

I think the Pi(S) should Pi rather than Kn. I don't see them as impetuous and they did deploy in deeper formations and they did co-operate with the shot.

I think that a formation of two deep Pi flanked by Sh seems pretty consistent with what I read in the article and if it fights a formation of Kn it should win around 83% of the time. Do you think the Kn should have even less chance to win?

[Snowcat]

Thanks Rich. You've done all I asked, and I accept your conclusion. Nice one.

Cheers. http://fanaticus.org/discussion/images/icons/icon14.gif

I will play them with my list though (without the pike and with more even numbers for the supporting elements of Pi to work - unless you can see something wrong with that). :)

[Rich Gause]

It should work even without double ranked Pi but I would certainly be more comfortable with them when going up against Kn. As we play more RRR I am sure we will get a better idea about how well it actually works in practice. This discussion did get me thinking about how Pi work.

[Rich Gause]

I wonder how Phil came up with a list that didn't have an option to be nothing but mounted and shot/dragoons. Maybe there were some pike in most of the battles that the article didn't mention?

[Snowcat]

My guess would be that it's a combination of there not being a lot of info around re: this particular phase of the Huguenot armies in English, and Phil not having read the article. I doubt that the article erred in not mentioning the pike, esp as their inclusion would have buggered up the army's mobility - which was paramount to their strategic success. IIRC, as King, Henri possessed Royal Pikemen, like a sort of Guards unit, but whether these were used much if at all during the latter part of his 'equestrian army' phase, seems doubtful. But who knows? Maybe someone else has some real insight into this...?

[Tony Aguilar]

To add further confusion in the matter with the Calvinists...

I went back and looked at a couple of the DBR lists and it seems that there are a couple of units that are listed as Pi (F) and therefore would be knights in DBA-RRR, but I had them erroneously listed as Pi. One of these elements is the Huguenot volunteers in the Dutch Rebellion list. Interesting that the Huguenots are Pi (S) in their own list. Another is the Caballos Corazas in the Spanish Low Countries list, which was listed as Pi (S), but I somehow had them as Kn. I will be posting the changes on Monday in version 1.11. As a side note, as changes (if any more errors are found) would probably be minute, I will be adding a page at the end describing what page has been altered in the new version, so as to not have to print out the whole document AGAIN and just reprint the pages that have the change. (which I suspect will be less than 5 or so)

[Kontos]

Low Countries, eh? I'll keep my eye out. Might have to paint another element. :D

Frank

[Tony Aguilar]

Low Countries, eh? I'll keep my eye out. Might have to paint another element. :D

Frank

Not likely you have to repaint, as it is the I/47e list Post-1631. It is only the Kn (g) "Caballos Corazas" element which should be a Pi (g) instead.

[Snowcat]

To add further confusion in the matter with the Calvinists...

I went back and looked at a couple of the DBR lists and it seems that there are a couple of units that are listed as Pi (F) and therefore would be knights in DBA-RRR, but I had them erroneously listed as Pi. One of these elements is the Huguenot volunteers in the Dutch Rebellion list. Interesting that the Huguenots are Pi (S) in their own list.

Uh oh!
Then again, maybe the Huguenot volunteers didn't/couldn't integrate as well with arquebusiers in the Dutch Rebellion, so were basically hard-charging cuirassiers more independent and 'on their own'...? :)

[Kontos]

Not likely you have to repaint, as it is the I/47e list Post-1631. It is only the Kn (g) "Caballos Corazas" element which should be a Pi (g) instead.
Thanks, Tony, but its not like I wouldn't have wanted to paint another element. :D

Frank

[Rich Gause]

It should work even without double ranked Pi but I would certainly be more comfortable with them when going up against Kn. As we play more RRR I am sure we will get a better idea about how well it actually works in practice. This discussion did get me thinking about how Pi work.

I ran across this thread while looking for something else. At Recon I got a chance to try out my new Italian wars army with several Kn against my Swedish army with Pi supported by Shot or Shot supported by Pi to see how well they did bfore I used them in the RRR open. The Swedes were played by a newbie who has played less than ten games of DBA. We played I think 3 games and my Kn were just massacered by the Pi/Shot line. I tried repeatedly to get a coherent line of Kn into contact with his pistol/shot line and I just couldn't do it. Maybe if I got really lucky in the first fire phase before contact and then got lucky with my pips and managed to get my whole line into contact and then got lucky in the first combat so that it snowballed it might have worked. Unfortunately for me none of those things happened. The problem for the Kn player is that you can't close with the Pi/Sh line without getting shot first and chances are you are going to get elements recoiled or killed which may make it really difficult to get into contact without getting overlapped. If the Pi/Sh player is smart he will wait until you move within 4" then move up to exactly 2" and shoot, any of you Kn who recoil will be unable to close in your turn. You can also move up to 4" and a milimeter so he can't move forward and shoot and then close to 1"and a milimeter so that your recoiled Kn can close(if you get enough pips and if they are still alive) the downside is then you get shot twice, once in your turn and once in his. If you close to within 3" but outside of shooting range and for some reason he doesn't move up and shoot at you then you can close with an intact line with one pip and get a bunch of combats where you will start at a disadvantage but you have quick kills. If that happens(and I wouldn't count on it) it is a lot like a regular matchup of Kn or Wb against a line of Bd where if you get lucky and win the first couple of combats your overlaps and reducing his support factors can make up for his higher combat values or if you don't win(which is more likely) you can find your Kn getting overlapped which can also turn into a disaster. In any case I wisely decided not to use my Kn heavy army for the tournament and used a Montrose Scots army which came in second. They did well until I ran up against an army with several Pi elements which caused me matchup problems. I way prefer Pi over Kn and wonder if they are too tough if anything.

[Snowcat]

I way prefer Pi over Kn and wonder if they are too tough if anything.

Nope, they sound just fine to me. ;)

[Rich Gause]

I discovered a way to fight a Pistol/Shot/Pike army with something that isn't at the Hurricon RRR tourney btw. I still think the PSP combo has the edge but an army with Kn, Bd, and Skirmishers can work. I used my Italian Venetian I/6? with 3KN, 2 Bd, 3 Sk, 3 Sh and a LH to win the tourney including a really interesting game in the final vs Bryant Mclaughlann's Bavarians that were heavy on Pi with 3. The idea is to use the Bd to hit the shot to get rid of the flank support so the Kn can quick kill the Pi with the Sk keeping the shot from disrupting your Bd/Kn line before it can close. It didn't quite work out how I thought it would but his shot avoided my blades who avoided his knights who didn't avoid my shot and my knights did manage to get his pistols unsupported. I think he was surprised by the matchup issues more than anything and may have been confused about some of the quick kills also because I did not expect his shot to avoid my blade. I bet next time it won't be as effective and he will have a more thought out response because I am already thinking about ways to deal with this.