09/08/2018 at 11:17 #96521
A few years ago I began, and nearly completed an 800 point FoG Covenanter army.
However, other projects made demands and I sidelined them. The time has come to finish them.
I have 4 bog standard regiments of Foot (2 bases of pike/command & 4 of muskets each). I want to include at least one “poor”regiment.
It seems to me that firearms would be in small numbers so, to the pike & command bases, I add 3 bases of ….what? I’m thinking possibly “heavy weapons”: pole arms etc. Does this sound plausible?
donald09/08/2018 at 11:33 #96523
Not necessary, Donald. “Poor” in the FoGR rules just means you re-roll 6s when shooting (plus there are also some morale “downers”); it doesn’t actually mean you have fewer muskets, just that they aren’t very good, so no need to replace them with anything. I think it’s “musket* (musket-star)” that has fewer bases shooting.
From memory, in pre-1650 armies you have to include at least three poor regiments (18 bases) of P&S foot anyway.09/08/2018 at 14:01 #96537
From memory, in pre-1650 armies you have to include at least three poor regiments (18 bases) of P&S foot anyway.
Thanks , Brendan. I’ll have to check my book but I think some of the Covenanter armies are a tad better than others.
BTW a friend refers to them as the Tartanned Taliban which is both funny but a little disturbingly true.
donald10/08/2018 at 07:25 #96576
Possibly the best part of wargaming: the hobby, is planning an army.
I’m not wedded to the FoG lists. We’re not competition gamers &, to be honest, it’s a bit dull.
So…..I’m going to place an order to Tumbling Dice for some Highland skirmishers. These chaps will make 2 X 4 base Light infantry units.
I’m also thinking about a BG of cuirassiers. The Royalists under Montrose had them so it might still be a stretch but I think they’d be a not-totally-inappropriate choice (just a not-quite-right choice). I’m also going to load up on arty: a BG of Heavy as well as a BG of light guns.
donald10/08/2018 at 11:24 #96589
I agree with what Brendan said. At Benburb the Covenanter foot were using shorter pikes than their opponents a distinct disadvantage. No lack of muskets though. I didn’t shorten the pikes on my Covenantor army because it seemed a step too far.
Covenanter cavalry came in two types. There were Lancers, in buff coat and pot at best. They would and did charge. There were also sword and pistol armed cavalry, sometimes up to 5 pistols a man. Khurasan make an excellent 15mm figure for those. Any how, they liked to shoot as you’d expect so very much fire arm cavalry.
I suppose you could rationalise your armoured cavalry by saying the Gordon Horse changed sides.
- This reply was modified 4 months ago by OB.
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/15/08/2018 at 20:32 #96965
The BG of cuirassiers could be a life-guard for your commander-in-chief. I would say only two bases though, rather than the full four – I don’t think there was a shortage of armour so much as a shortage of horses capable of carrying the bloke wearing it!!!
I would have thought lots of Highlanders – in “Warrior” format – would be ideal for you. The big 8-base units are usually either musket* or bow* which means you fire the front rank and half the back rank at close range, followed by an “in wi’ tha’ boot, an’ thin wi’ tha’ heed” four-inch charge move.15/08/2018 at 22:59 #96973
And then there’s Commanded Shot.
The FoG rules only allow a few armies (eg Swedes) to have 2 base BGs (ie 6 figures) of them.
Given that cavalry at the time attacked at the walk, or at most, the trot, they seem a no-brainer.
I’ve used them with my Gustavus Swedes…..an army several Scots’ commanders had fought with.
But they are so effective, I’d hate to add them to the Covenanters without more thought….
donald15/08/2018 at 23:23 #96974
The Scottish horse (with the exception of the Gordon Horse, who appear to have been better trained, equipped and motivated) were generally fairly rubbish though, weren’t they? I guess it depends how much of that ‘flavour’ that you want to keep in your army.16/08/2018 at 05:40 #96981
The Scottish horse (with the exception of the Gordon Horse, who appear to have been better trained, equipped and motivated) were generally fairly rubbish though, weren’t they? I guess it depends how much of that ‘flavour’ that you want to keep in your army.
My understanding, ET, is there was quite some change in quality for the Covenanters over time. After all, the period lasts from 1639-1652.
The Foot is a good example. They begin with pike heavy, not that well trained regiments but progress to reasonably steady infantry. Their performance in England was generally pretty good.
Perhaps this is more true of the Horse where a re-adoption of the lance made some improvements to performance.
By the time of their activities during the Preston campaign in 1648 and the Dunbar campaign of 1650, I’d think an “average” rating is quite justifiable.
As I have done with my FoG (Ancients) armies, I guess I will tend to slide unit quality up & down the scale to meet the demands of the scenario or to establish some balance with my opponent.
To keep with some pretense of historical accuracy, I doubt if I’ll ever include *any* elite units in the entire army & will always (?) have a modicum of “poor”.
I know I’m pushing believability & risk offending the purely historically minded with my demi-cuirassiers. However, they won’t be used in every battle & will be rated “average” at best & possibly even “poor” to represent their puny mounts & lack of experience. Brendan’s suggestion of only 2 bases is a good one, I think.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Ochoin.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.