Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 123 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: GNW? #47770
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    So in a very basic set of rules the German, British, Dutch and French styles would pretty much be treated the same as the effect of speed is offset by increased disorder; they would have an effect where order and impact were covered as separate factors. The ‘Swedish System’ would have a bonus for combining order and impact.

    This is certainly what I do and is done in a set like Twilight aimed at doing full historic battles. For more detailed rules, usually aimed at smaller battles, they could reflect the differences between the styles. I guess it all depends on how it is done, what you feel is important, the scale of the game, etc.

    I am thrilled to hear this, and look forward to ordering a copy. Thank you.

    The above is the way the new Twilight works – only ‘Swedish style’ are different and quality/size/leadership/etc are what counts. The 1st scenario booklet are Western battles but the 2nd is Ottoman and GNW battles – that should be out soon after the 1st lot.

    in reply to: GNW? #47748
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Rank firing by 3 ranks left you in danger of the whole battalion being unloaded/reloading at the same time, the sideways ripple of Platoon meant some men always had charged muskets. The French were changing over during the WSS at Colonels discretion. The Austrians and Prussians (Brought by the Duke of Anhalt-Dessau) both adopted it from collaboration with the British/Dutch forces.

    All units whatever system they used usually kept 1 rank in reserve to avoid being totally unloaded/reloading.

    While no doubt some French WSS units would have used platoon firing during this war and they certainly had the freedom to do so if they wished the major change over dates to later on.

    The Austrians used platoon firing in the 1680’s and 90’s in their wars against the Ottomans and possible in earlier wars. It was developed independently of the British/Dutch. It is probable that the Prussians and other Germans allies of the Austrians also generally used the Austrian system until Frederick’s time. Although those Prussian units in Marlborough’s army could have used the British/Dutch version during the WSS.

    The French using fire then charge is listed as both doctrine and anecdotally from Blenheim through to Malplaquet. Only Berwick started to change it to the full impact style he had faced in Spain. It came from the 60 years of uninterrupted victories the French had racked up between Rocroi and Blenheim.

    Where is it listed? What anecdotes? I suspect that both of these come from the usual English language sources and are based on the usually couple of examples mentioned in them. Even these when not trying to make the point that the French are firing usually say they charge in with sword only. If you look elsewhere you will struggle to find any mention of firing and lots and lots of charging with the sword. A recent work on Blenheim that uses non English sources is an example. This shows the Gendarmerie were involved in at least 9 actions at that battle, they fired in only one – the famous clash with the British cavalry – and then almost certainly because they were too disorganised to charge.

    The usual accepted view on the French over the period 1643 to 1704 is that their success in that period was because during it they largely abandoned firing. The basic outline of this idea is that the French largely abandoned firing in the later TYW era and it had gone completely by the 1670’s. This is supposedly why the French had success up to the end of the NYW. At this time the French supposedly switched back to firing and so their poor performance in the WSS. In my view this is not very reliable but that is a different matter. I don’t know about earlier but again it is difficult to actually find the French cavalry firing in the WSS.

    I have no idea what you mean about Berwick but I don’t think he changed the French tactics. I don’t think he  changed because of what happened in Spain – the French/Spanish cavalry generally won there & victory always went to the largest army. The two current theories on the French have them either changing back to pre WSS tactics in the 1720’s/30’s or continuing with the charging tactics they had used since circa 1643. Like everyone else they changed over to Swedish tactics as done by Frederick’s cavalry later on.

    The Swedes were almost suicidal in their charging and aggression. It is very hard to actually allow for them.

    Yes this is what I suggested in my original post. It is not impossible and some rules manage it but unfortunately many don’t and it will be the trickiest part of any set of rules.

    Battalion guns are issued in British and Dutch service from the late 1690s and the Board of Ordinance issue books bear this out. They were a 3 or 4 pdr officially. However it would not surprise if they got ‘lost’ on march and campaign however.

    The Board of Ordinance certainly issued 3/4 pdr guns at this time and indeed earlier. 3 and 4 pounders were a standard field piece at the time and everyone had them.They were usually 50 to 75% of any armies field guns but unfortunately they are not battalion guns. If they are then everyone has them and has had them for a long time by the WSS/GNW era.

    The Danes in the GNW suffered from top level leadership, in the WSS they had Marlborough or Eugene as army commanders, with their cavalry handled by Wurttemburg or Overkirk, both fine commanders of cavalry.

    and

    It is my opinion from reading and researching that the French army was better in the WSS, but they had no commander to handle Marlborough until Berwick, and by then the troops themselves no longer believed.

    I am afraid I wouldn’t agree on the details here (do you mean Berwick or do you mean Villars?) but I would certain agree on the general thrust of these 2 posts. The outcome of a battle was rarely the result of one factor and traditional factors like numbers, leadership, morale, etc, were important. I think it is also important to remember that winning battles and winning wars are/were not the same. You could argue that both the French and Danes lost their battles but won the wars.

    in reply to: GNW? #47708
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Ummm this French charge, was this before or after the discharge of pistols that was their standard practice at the start of the period?

    I am not really sure when you date the ‘start of the period’ but at this time there wasn’t really a ‘standard practice’ for the French. The French cavalry from well before this date (TYW? I don’t have my reference stuff in front of me at the moment so I am not sure) was to walk forward until close and then spur forward into a gallop but with relatively little order. The idea that using pistols comes from English language sources while it is clear if the look at other sources that this is not true. At the time of the GNW and WSS they could fire (the first rank) their pistols before they spurred into the gallop but that was very much optional and from the evidence we have looks to have been relatively rare. It was also done when for some reason the unit couldn’t counter charge. It is difficult to put a number to it but I would say certainly less than 10% of the time and probably a lot less.

    Platoon fire, the biggest advantage to it, and the main reason it slowly got adopted as standard was the fact you could do it in 3 ranks, The rank fire system need 4 to 6 ranks to make it work.

    Well as already mentioned most armies at this time could platoon fire but didn’t for one reason or another. That said you could of course rank fire in any number of ranks and it was certainly done in 3 or even in 2 during this era. It was commonly used by the ‘Platoon firing’ armies in 3 ranks, some used 4 ranks, under various circumstances. There is for example some mention of it being no longer necessary in one of the later (1720’s/3o’s?) manuals. While rank firers often kept the same frontage and reduced the numbers of ranks when they were less than full strength, i.e. most of the time. So a unit that fought in theory in 4 ranks would fight in 3 ranks if it was at 75% of official strength (this would be common real field strength). While if the same unit was at 50% official strength they would be in 2 ranks (units in Spain were commonly at 40% or so).

    There is no reason why being in 3 ranks should be ‘better’ as such but assuming it was better to be in less ranks then rank firers would usually be too.

    Platoon firing was quickly adopted by all armies after 1740 ish by which time various changes had probably made it better than rank firing although maybe not the best system around by then, but that is another story. English language sources love to claim some great advantage for platoon firing but again I am afraid there is no reliable evidence for this at this time, i.e. GNW/WSS.

    On British/Dutch/Danish Cavalry, they started slow and built to a collision speed (slower than would think seeing racehorses, but they had to hold formation), but only used swords. Many other cavalry were still intended to use pistols in the process. The finest exponents of the ‘at charge’ cavalry’ in this period were the Danes.

    I think, but it is tricky to prove, they all understood that you needed to go fast and hold formation but the problem was they hadn’t worked out how to do it to something like the full extent possible. The Swedes had worked out how to do this and their number 1 fan, Frederick the Great, later brought the technique to common use when he copied the technique with the Prussian cavalry from the middle of the WAS.

    The British/Dutch/Danish basically went for a compromise and the French/German styles emphasied one thing over the other. The Swedes (and later everyone) did both.

    The Danes were certainly very good units in the WSS battles and arguably the best in Marlborough’s army/better than the British or Dutch/the best overall in the WSS. They had a 100% record in the GNW. Unfortunately that is a 100% record of defeat to the real “at charge cavalry” of the period, the Swedes. Often this was despite the Danes being in strong positions and ‘experienced’ and/or have other advantages, while the Swedes are 2nd class/new units and had other disadvantages. Of course, as always, there were other factors in what happened but I think it would be very difficult to come up with a strong argument for the Danes being better than the Swedes they faced and would have had severe problems if they faced the pre Poltava Swedish army.

    Battalion guns were standard in the WSS, as they were introduced to beef up firepower now they no longer had pikes (more firepower helped keep Cavalry at range, was the thinking).

    Many people believe this but I am afraid there is no evidence for it and a lot of reasons why it is not true. It took me a long time to realise this as well and also it depends on what exactly you mean by a ‘battalion gun’. But battalion guns like those used in the SYW were invented/developed in the 1720’s and became common in the period after this. I don’t really have time to go through it again and if you have some period evidence of their use I will be happy to hear about it.

    Practically I will just say what I say to players in my games who insist on having battalion guns. Generally real armies only had about 1 gun (of all types) per battalion & you are usually supposed to have 2 battalion guns per battalion. So I say to them, assuming we are not doing an historical re-fight, if you want to use battalion guns then you can give them to half your battalions and have no other artillery.

    in reply to: GNW? #47692
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Hi Kaptain,

     

    OK so the Swedish charged at the gallop and knee to knee – i.e. in good order. So you can think of it as high speed and high order. This was the most effective way of charging but not everyone knew this/how to do it at this time. Later in the century Frederick the Great identified this and copied Swedish GNW style tactics. These Prussian/Swedish style tactics then replaced all the others & became the standard everyone used.

    The German style is also in good order but at the slow trot. Think of it as high order and low speed. The British/Dutch style is at the trot but with more disorder than the German/Swedish tactic. So it is medium speed and medium order. Just to round it off the French charged at the gallop but in relative disorder – so high speed and low disorder. Essentially the faster they went the better but also the more negative disorder they got. With the French and German styles you could shoot pistols as part of the attack but that was very much an option.

    Of course the above is general and individual units would vary in ability to actual do these things and also would on occasion fire say when they were not supposed to. So morale, experience, leadership, luck, etc were equally (more?) important.

     

    p.s. You might be interested to know an updated version (and scenarios) of Twilight of the Sun King is at the printers now.

    in reply to: GNW? #47688
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    This is a massive subject and also one in which there is a lot of old and wrong ideas around. I also think that without know how you think the periods before and after were it will be difficult to say in detail how this period was different. So I think that as a general rule it might be better to ask about specific things you are unsure about, as you already have done a little. More on this later.

    I would say there are 2 main problems/issues with the GNW. The first is how to give an army (the Swedes) that were often vastly outnumbered, 2, 3 or more to 1, and facing an enemy in a strong position/defences a reasonable chance to achieve the victories that they did. Allied to this 1st point is how to do this 1st point without making the Swedes ‘superhuman’. Most available rules fail the 1st part and so typically greatly reduce the task facing the Swedes – it is common to half or more the forces they actually faced and often ‘vastly outnumbered’ translates into the Swedes opponents get an extra unit. Those few that don’t fail this test stumble often stumble on the 2nd part – i.e. the Swedes are unbeatable. So basically it is a tricky balance to allow the Swedes to do what they did and not over do it and make them unbeatable.

    So back to specific things already talked about.

    Pikes: The majority of armies used these in 1700 but the use of them declined over the next few years generally but not really in the GNW, or at least in a different way. They were a crucial part of the Swedes aggressive Ga Pa tactics but there use was patchy, especially in secondary theatres and after 1709/Poltava. This was because there was a shortage of pikes rather than a change of tactics. The Russians used pikes all the way through the war but the numbers used varied and also sometimes they left the pikes behind. Again the use of pikes was crucial to Russian successes. Most of the other combatants were some of the armies which had stopped using pikes before 1700. But the Danes re-introduced them in 1713 as a result of defeats and the Poles are basically unknown.

    Cavalry: The bulk of the cavalry were standard European types but also you had various ‘Eastern’ types. Light cavalry were always in the Russian, Polish, Ottoman armies and sometimes in the Swedish army. The Poles and Ottomans still fielded ‘Renaissance’ cavalry types – winged hussars and sipahi – not exactly the same but more or less.

    These apart the bulk of the cavalry used the relatively ineffective, or variants of them, cavalry tactics that had been in use for 60 or so years. These were the British/Dutch style tactics (used by the Danes) and German style tactics (used by the Saxons, Russians and Prussians) – no GNW army used the French style tactics. Each of these was basically flawed in various way and none was more effective than the other. They were all replaced later in the century by the Swedish style tactics, or versions of them – the Swedish tactics were  clearly superior to the others and are what we now think of as a charge.

    Russian and Polish dragoons commonly fought on foot but were ‘real’ cavalry. Other cavalry, including dragoons, rarely fought on foot. Except for the Swedes dragoon were often a little ‘worse’ than ‘Horse’ units, often because they were newly raised or relatively low status.

    Socket Bayonets/Flintlocks: As mentioned socket bayonets were now standard issue and also flintlock muskets but some units were still equipped with older weapons, particularly in the early stages of the war.

    Platoon Fire: In essence everyone could platoon fire at this time but in common with elsewhere this did not mean they actually used it that much – even the most famous platoon firers often fired using other methods. This is a complicated issue as some people still believe in the idea of platoon fire being superior at this time despite the lack of reliable evidence. I don’t have time to go into this so I will just give you a run down on methods used.

    Saxons used rank firing generally but used platoon firing when fighting Turks & might have used it in some GNW battles – most German armies used platoon firing against Turks but thought it was no use against ‘Western’ opponents.

    The Russians were probably as above – we suspect they used against Turks but didn’t use it in the GNW.

    The Danes initially used platoon firing, apart from the units that had fought with the Austrians in the WSS, but some units at least switched after.

    The Swedes kind of invented platoon fire but had abandoned it as ineffective. The Swedes very much favoured assaults with volleys as they went in. Firing tactics were basically pretty irrelevant because they didn’t aim to get into firefights.

    Grenades: These are really for use in sieges. No doubt they would feature in field actions, assaults on fortifications being already mentioned and the most obvious occasion, but they were not really significant.

    Battalion Guns: I have already answered this for you on another forum so just a quick overview. SYW style battalion guns do not yet exist – artillery is generally immobile. All armies in defence could use light field guns as close support spread in penny packets along the front, often these were called regimental guns. The Swedes did this  when defending but they didn’t often defend whatever the odds & so it is fairly rare. The Russians were of all the armies of the time the closest to having SYW style battalion guns – they were attached to units and had mixed artillery/infantry crew – but this was because they nearly always just defended. The Saxons and Danes often used regimental guns but as they often switched between attack/defence they didn’t actually always take part in the action.

    in reply to: Spencer Smith Goes to War #37709
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Nice 🙂

     

    I stupidly sold my Spencer Smith some years ago and I have regretted it ever since. Not that they were as good as these but I think I will have to replace my lost army.

    in reply to: Refighting History wargaming book #37100
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Thanks William

    in reply to: Refighting History wargaming book #37059
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Hi William,

     

    Which battles are in the book?

    in reply to: War of the Spanish Succesion Figure Scale #33094
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Mike,

     

    Here is a page on the Poles during the Great Northern War (1700 – 21) – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/faq.htm – they fought on both/all sides in this war. In short they looked like ‘classic’ Poles, Winged Hussars, Pancerni, etc, but with less old fashioned weapons/equipment (lances, spears, bows, armour) and more pistols, carbines, etc. The Western style cavalry looked like western style cavalry of the time. We have no idea what the infantry looked like, partly because they used very little of it.

    After the GNW the army was ‘reorganised’. This meant it was deliberately made so bad that it could never be a problem to anyone else again. It was literally a joke army and was the butt of many jokes at the time. It was small, progressively ‘Westernised’ in appearance and absolutely useless. This is why in the SYW the Russians, Prussians and Austrians just wander through Poland at will – there is no ‘real’ Polish army to do anything about it.

    in reply to: War of the Spanish Succesion Figure Scale #33023
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    The French, Spanish and Savoyards fought together in 1701-02 and sort of in 1703. In 1703 the Savoyards are planning to switch sides and so try to seperate. In 1704-06 the French and Spanish continue the fight.

    The Austrians have Danish, Prussian, Palatine and Saxe Gotha contingents with their army at various time, along with Savoyards from 1704. The armies usually contained grenzers/hussars but these were NOT battle troops and without doing a full check I don’t think ever featured on the Italian battlefields. In 1703 a Hungarian revolt started and lasted until 1711. Large numbers of grenzers/hussars fought (on both sides I think) in the campaigns there.

    in reply to: War of the Spanish Succesion Figure Scale #33012
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    The infantry had collars but these are I suspect they would be barely noticeable even in 25mm. Turnbacks were optional with the infantry but the cavalry did have them by the SYW. I don’t know if they had them in the 1740’s though? Some cavalry did wear breastplates outside but that of course also means some didn’t. This also ignore the fact that many of them dumped the cuirasses/didn’t bother wearing them in any case.

    Depends how picky you are, I suppose

    Yes to some extent. It is also only a problem if you insist on using a totally impractical figure scale 🙂

     

    in reply to: War of the Spanish Succesion Figure Scale #32975
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I can’t help with figures, I dumped 25mm years ago.

    I am not sure if you are planning to get one army or two sides of some kind. But if you are going to get just one side then I would recommend either French or Swedish. The French use the WSS style uniforms through to the early SYW (1757). While the Swedes basically invented SYW style uniform and were wearing it at the time of the WSS. They were not in the WSS but fighting in the Great Northern War at the same time, but their uniforms are the same right through to the SYW. The main difference is they have pikes in the WSS era, so basically have a few extra figures to replace them in later wars.

    in reply to: Armies of the Italian States #29447
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I am afraid I am more of an early/mid 18th century guy but I would have thought it would be easy enough to find the Italian units in the Austrian and other armies at the start of the FRW. These could perhaps have mutinied to join the ‘league’. Details of the Venetian and Papal armies are difficult to find  in earlier times but you can find them and I would guess you can for this time. Unfortunately I don’t know where but hopefully someone else will.

    in reply to: Armies of the Italian States #29393
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Did you have anything in particular in mind? This is clearly a big subject if you don’t narrow it down a little.

    in reply to: How do you organize your armies? #21478
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Generally I play high level games and one of the great things with doing this is that you just get the whole army! But when I do get a smaller army or an army for a smaller scale of game then I always get whole formations of real units. So I will get X division or Y brigade or whatever.

    in reply to: Do Horse and Musket Wargames lack Zen? #19675
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    The writer may have a whole different understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like that doesn’t chime with your understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like. Both of which may disagree with my understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like.

    Which of us is right?

    Yes of course but we are I think talking about something different here. Clearly some aspects are always going to be up for discussion – the relative effectiveness of fire systems for example. But the question here was about basic rules of warfare. repiqueone correctly identified that in real battles –

    In most battles of the 18th and 19th century the most common action by commands and units in battle was doing nothing. Only a small portion of an army was ever active at a single time, and usually only a section of the battle line was engaged.

    I would add other factors not commonly found on wargaming tables – having 2 lines of battle for example. These are basic rules of real historical battles of this period. So any set of rules that does not say encourage 2 lines to be used and have many of the units standing around doing nothing a lot of the time can not be ‘historical’, or at least is less than fully historical. In the same way that a set for this period that is doesn’t have rules for artillery would also be less than historical no matter how good the rest is.

    Of course it is fine if people want to play games with anything they like but sadly most games have little to do with history – for these kinds of reason let alone some of the very out dated tactical ideas common amongst gamers.

    in reply to: Do Horse and Musket Wargames lack Zen? #19661
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Most good sets of reasonably historic rules don’t allow the gamer to move everything all the time or make it a good idea to have large parts of your army unengaged, etc – certainly the ones my group play don’t.

    Personally this kind of thing is one of my benchmarks for deciding if a set looks good, i.e. looks historical. Far too many rules think that it is OK to have rules for different weapons of a period but have no idea what warfare in the period was actually like.

    in reply to: WSS Rules, what do you suggest? #19560
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Nice report. Our group have had similar experiences playing Ramillies. We have done a historical re-fight of the twice – we had more units than you but we use smaller scale figures. In any case I ran the games and the French won both times.

    The first time we did as you did – i.e. no one had much prior knowledge of the details of the battle. The historical units were placed where they started the battle and the players then started playing. The result of this was that the French stood on the defensive while the Confederates launched a general assault all along their line. But this meant that the attacks arrived piecemeal and none of them was strong enough to guarantee success. It must also be said that the French cleverly exploited the disjointed Confederate attack. This led to a spectacular collapse of the Confederate morale across the whole front.

    The second game was the same set up but of course now the players knew the battle and many had also read up on it – this game was a few months after the first. The decisive factor in this battle was the greater team work between the French players compared to the Confederates. The Confederates had decided to try to replicate the historical tactics used – feint on the right and then thrust through the middle. The problem was that despite this the Confederates still didn’t co-operate well together. The player in the middle who should have held back a little before the left was secure or the switch of forces to that area had at least got close. Instead an immediate full assault was launched. This had some success at first but soon got bogged down and so each set of reinforcements had to go straight into battle to try to stabilise the situation. So the Confederates were funnelled into a ‘killing zone’ piecemeal as they arrived. A situation not helped by the different approaches of the 2 sides. The original commands and units that each player had got mixed up and spread around during the battle. The Confederates kept control of the units they had at the start despite them later in the battle often being in various parts of the battlefield. In contrast the French were happy to swap units between players so that an individual player commanded a logical group of units.

    The players wanted to use the same teams in the 2nd battle as the 1st but next time I would insist on different teams. Possibly the French taking over the Confederate army. But that will have to wait as next it is Oudernaarde 🙂

    in reply to: WSS Rules, what do you suggest? #19505
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    If you are interested in doing large battles you could try the ‘Twilight of the Sun King’ rules from the Pike and Shot society – http://pikeandshotsociety.org/sales.htm. But hang on a while as a new version/supplement is coming soon.

    We use 1 or 2 (depending on the size of the real battle) Polemos bases per brigade (roughly 4 battalions). So you have with the armies you list about 72 battalions a side – Blenheim was 84 ‘French’ vs. 66 ‘British’ – but you will probably be short of cavalry.

    in reply to: WSS resources #19504
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Marlborough, Soldier and Diplomat by Karawanseny is a good book featuring articles on various subjects by academic experts, often not Anglo’s. But it is very much an academic work and probably only for those with a serious interest in the war.

    The Pike and Shot society has many useful publications but I would recommend this – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marlborough-Goes-War-Campaign-Blenheim/dp/1902768183/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426084301&sr=8-2&keywords=marlborough+goes+to+war. See also – http://pikeandshotsociety.org/sales.htm

    On the Spanish campaign there is this on the action packed 1710 campaign – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/MarlSpain.htm. Also coming soon on the more general Peninsula war – http://www.helion.co.uk/published-by-helion/century-of-the-soldier/books-in-series/marlborough-s-other-army-the-british-army-and-the-campaigns-of-the-first-peninsula-war-1702-1712.html

    in reply to: SYW book recommendation, please #14660
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Unfortunately many of the other works mentioned are also basically Frederick fan boy works.
    Gosh! I’m assuming you haven’t actually read Showalter’s work?

    Yes I have read Showalter but it was some time ago now, when it first came out. Unfortunately I also don’t have it to hand at the moment. I had not really intended to include it in the ‘fan boy’ category, although some would – see below. My main point about this book is it is not a book about the SYW but a book about Frederick. As I remember things it doesn’t really cover the war away from him, including a lot of what happens with the war in the East but which doesn’t feature him.

    If Dennis is a ‘fanboy’ than I hate to think what a critical writer would have to say about Frederick the Great! He did win some battles after all, no?

    Ah well I guess you haven’t read the Szabo book I mentioned or indeed many others on this subject from the non English speaking world. For various reasons the English speaking world works generally are the most pro Frederick, works in other languages, including German, are generally a lot more negative about him.

    Szabo doesn’t help his case with his obvious dislike of Frederick personally but his work is similar to many in non English languages. Szabo’s view could be summarise as Prussia survived the SYW, rather than won it. Prussia did this despite what Frederick did, rather than because of what he did. Szabo is by no means the most critical, at least about Frederick’s military ability, as some other works. So overall Showalter is probably pro Frederick when you look at the complete set of views, but he is one of the most negative from the English speaking world.

    Before I move on I should say that Szabo’s work is good mainly because it links all the various theatres of the war together. It doesn’t just talk about Frederick but also what the other Prussian armies are doing. It links his campaigns in with the British/French campaigns and the relatively obscure campaigns in the east – the Recih army and Swedes being good examples.

    However I can of course understand why the Ospreys, written as they were by a serving officer with operational experience, would be lost on armchair experts, he does tend to emphasise the challenges of operational decision making, with all the burdens of national command responsibilities, with only an uncertain view over the ‘other side of the hill’and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

    Hardly the stuff of true military history -what!

    I am afraid I am not really certain which of the various writers on this era published by Osprey you are talking about and so I will just talk in general terms. Indeed I am not sure I have actually seen all of the Ospreys on this period. I think such a work as you describe is exactly what everyone should be reading and not just ‘armchair experts’. But there is I think no chance that any Osprey will ever do this. Ospreys are usually 50 to 100 small pages with many pictures and other illustrations. It is almost certainly not possible to do what you suggest in their format and I have never seen any that even remotely come near to this.

    Such a work as you suggest would be good in another format but there is absolutely no reason why a serving officer with operational experience would be any better than any one else at doing this. There are not many writers, serving officers or others, who have much experience of the burdens of national command. They could have some useful insights and skills from their experiences but they are also are likely to have others that do not and to lack other required skills.

    The main problem with works in English is not the things you mention but that they often don’t realise that there are two (or more) sides to the hill. Works in English are dominated by the self-seeking words of Frederick himself and ‘fan boy’ works using mainly English language sources. The situation is getting better but far too many still use mainly English sources – Ospreys are generally terrible for this. The bibliography of good works on this era you should see that the vast majority of sources are not in English.

    in reply to: Mohacs 1526: Reset for WotR Using DBA3.0 #14538
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Thanks Tempest – a very useful reply and link

    in reply to: SYW book recommendation, please #14536
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I would echo what has been said about Duffy – his stuff is the well worth the expense. But I would recommend you leave his books until later. His works concentrate on the Eastern theatre (Austria/Prussia/Russia) and doesn’t really cover the Western theatre (Britain and allies/France). Duffy does cover all aspects of these campaigns in a balanced way, rather than others (Frederick fan boy works) which just repeat old ideas.

    Unfortunately many of the other works mentioned are also basically Frederick fan boy works. I would add to the list given – http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Seven-Years-War-Europe/dp/0582292727/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top. This is a good account of the whole European war and connects the various theatres well. It is very negative concerning Frederick which many readers don’t like, but is a useful other view point to balance against the ‘fan boy’ point of view. I would recommend it as a good overview, although I would be cautious about agreeing with some of the view on Frederick (but then the same is true for me for the ‘fan boy’ works).

    The other book I have heard of as being good, but I haven’t actually read, is this book – http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Global-Seven-Years-1754-1763/dp/0582092396/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=19AH2GJ1E2XZND9KRWJ1. This focuses on the Britain/France war and covers the worldwide conflict.

    in reply to: Mohacs 1526: Reset for WotR Using DBA3.0 #14462
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Me too but I am not sure how they are different to previous versions. Does anyone know?

    in reply to: loose files and American Scramble rules #10737
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Yes we use similar low key order rules. Basically you need to issue an order to move somewhere drastically different or do something drastically different to what you have been doing.

    We also say you can stop when you reach on obvious line – a fence, edge of a wood, etc.

    in reply to: loose files and American Scramble rules #10681
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    William: The rules are here – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/callan/lfas.htm

    Nick: We regularly play them with basically no modifications. We have a few house rules to do with set up and arm composition but nothing much. What mods do you use?

    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Hi all,

    I have updated the Gravelotte/St. Privat scenario to our new rules (http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/FUFF.htm). See The Battle of Gravelotte / St Privat: 18th August 1870 – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C19/gravstp.htm, more will follow when time allows.

    in reply to: War of the League of Augsburg #8803
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Phil,

    Thanks again for the reply. I think the key point is I need to do is sit down and work out what I want to do. I think that at the moment that is likely to be do this period but just substitute WSS/GNW figues. By the way some really nice figures and photos in your album. My figures are unfortunately not as nice as yours but my photography skills are minimal.

    On your specific points. I really was mainly interested in how the war fights when being close to history. I am not really interested in balanced games as such – very few real battles are truly balanced. The problem is that usually the bias is spread to both sides at different times. So while you might have the bad end of history’s deal in one game you have the possibility of a better situation in another historical battle. In short in my experience players don’t mind doing the ;can I better than X’ idea sometimes but they still want sometimes to ‘win’. The problem is I don’t think the Allies have much of a chance in any of the battles, although obviously this varies from battle to battle. In the WSS/GNW for example both sides benefit/suffer from a good/bad situation.

    In short I am not sure it is worth, for me, investing the time in getting the figures – but then again the Pendraken figures are so nice……..

    in reply to: War of the League of Augsburg #8427
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Hi Phil and thanks for the reply,

    I can see what you are getting at but my worry is more basic. I am re-reading Childs book at the moment and I have just read about Fleurus so I will talk about that. Clearly, as you point out, you would have to consider deployment and special rules for the battle but as I see the problem is simpler. According to Childs Fleurus was 40,000 French against 30,000 ‘Allies’, a substantial advantage. The course of the battle and indeed the war clearly points to the French being better, on average, than the allies and incidents like the entire Allied cavalry wing fleeing reinforce this. So even without the poor Allied commander and superior French commander & the things that flow from that it is difficult to see how they can hope to succeed.

    The French wouldn’t really need to do much to win. Obviously doing something ‘clever’ would potentially give a better victory. But as the Allies are outnumbered and outclassed without a strong position or say superior leadership to counter balance things it is difficult to see what they can do.

    This brings me to rules. We are basically OK with rules and have what we think are some good rules that reflect the era. That is kind of why I am a little worried about the battles – Fleurus would be very tough for the allies to win even without some restrictions they maybe should have. We do a lot of battles with smaller scale figures in an afternoon and usually historic re-fight. So far this year we have done Blenheim and Ramilles & have some more WSS (and GNW) battles in the pipelines. But we would also like to try going earlier.

    I am afraid I can’t stand Black Powder and similar rules but I am sure they that is just me. The rules we use, we use 2 sets, have a base with 10 to 15 infantry on as from 1 or 2 to 4 battalions. If possible we use 1 base per battalion in 1 set but that is not always possible and for larger battles we use 1 base for 2 to 4 battalions in another set. Also it depends a little on how many players we will have.

    For this kind of era we use 10mm figures and the new Pendraken LOA range is THE major factor in wanting to do this war (although I also want to do the war against the Ottomans). We already have large WSS and GNW armies in 10mm and so when this truly superb range came out it was a natural choice. At the moment I have kind of put the Flanders war on hold. I will try some test games with any old figures before I dive into that theatre I think. But I already have Ottomans and Poles in 10mm so I going for Imperialists, Saxon, Bavarians, etc, to fight these. If the test game for LOA works out I will expand these into armies for that war.

    What are your plans?

    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Hi Rick,

    The rules will generally be fine with 28mm but with some reservations. They work in bases and everything is tied into the size of base you use. For example a standard infantry move is 12 times the base width you use. You choose the base size based on what size figures you are using, how many you want to a base, etc.

    My main reservation in 28mm would be you will need a big table to play but other than that the rules will be fine in 28mm.

    in reply to: ECW Rule Recommendations / Warnings ??? #6110
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    OK Jeff. Please ask if you have any questions.

    in reply to: ECW Rule Recommendations / Warnings ??? #6068
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Jeff: I added you to the Yahoo group shortly after you applied. You then left a few minutes after that. I have sent you an invitation.

    The rules are for smaller battles – say 5 to 10 regiments per player.

    in reply to: 1859, 1864, 1866 and 1870 #6004
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    We play 1859 as well as 1866 & 1870-71 but not as much as these other wars. 1859 is an interesting war but it is short and limited, even when compared with 66 and 70-71. We normally re-fight historic battles and there are a lot more of these in 66 & 70-71 than in this war. While both the other wars are greater in scope – you have not only the fighting in Bohemia in 66 but also in Italy and Germany. In 1870/71 you also have the Republican phase battles.

    in reply to: 1859, 1864, 1866 and 1870 #5879
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    We have played this period a lot using the Fire and Fury variant rules – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/

    Currently we are playtesting a follow up to these. They are not really a 2nd edition of the F&F variants but a set influenced by F&F for large battles. Hopefully these will be more generally available soon.

    On a slightly different point I have to agree with the idea that the games/rules need to be structured to the period. One of the strengths, I feel, of the original F&F rules is the victory conditions. These can be used to allow ‘victory’ even when victory in the traditional sense is not possible. For example in a ‘typical’ FPW game were say a French Corps takes on a growing number of Prussian/German Corps. More and more enemy corps would arrive over time and so the French can’t win. Plus the Prussians can just stand off with their superior artillery and shell the French to pieces. But by giving the French player points for each turn they holding key positions or even just survive they can still get some kind of (moral?) victory.

    Similarly rules are needed for the limitations the armies put on themselves – like the mitrailleuse example. You often can’t just do a straight forward fight but you have to have a proper scenario/set up, even for a ‘pick up’ game.

    in reply to: War of the League of Augsburg #5876
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    <span style=”color: #585858;”>There is I suspect some circular logic causing you problems there. </span>

     

    Possible but I think it is just a poor use of language on my part. I have no idea if  ‘historicity’ is a word (interestingly the spell checker likes it!) but this is a use full idea.

    I used the term  <span style=”color: #585858;”>“Reasonably historical rules” </span>but what I meant is what might be called ‘high historicity rules’. ‘Reasonably historical’ in my sense meant close to history, I have doubts about how close that actually is.

    So hopefully got the vocab right I would guess low/medium historicity rules like Beneath the Lily Banner would make the large battles playable, although I am less sure about whether they would be practical. But I want to do ‘high historicity’ battles for this war/era.

    For say the WSS this is fine. While an individual WSS battle might be tough for one side or the other, that’s the way that things go sometimes, on other occasions things are more balanced or pro the other side. But for this war it doesn’t seem to be this way.

    This conversation has been useful and thanks for it. I think it has given me some ideas to work on.

    in reply to: War of the League of Augsburg #5742
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I was more talking about the fighting on the continent but I would guess it would be similar in Ireland but the other way round. The Williamite army was considerably stronger, up to 50%, than the Jacobites and mainly well equipped, experienced troops. The Jacobite cavalry was quite good but few in number. While most of the infantry were untrained and poorly equipped. Probably not as one sided as the continent but I would have guessed large battles would not be so good with reasonably historical rules. Which battles did you do and how did they go?

    The game in the pictures looks great – hopefully something like my ‘skirmishes’ will be :), although I suspect I will never manage anything so nice 🙁

    I can see how small games like this might be good in the war. I am not sure what they have done here but you can choose to do sections of a battle where the sides were more evenly matched, either generally or under the circumstances of the engagement. But as mentioned I am wondering if when you do full historical battles, which look to be fairly one sided, if it is worth doing with reasonably historical rules. Neerwinden is a fairly good example the allied army has a good position but is heavily outnumbered by better troops under better commanders. If doing the full battle I am finding it difficult to see more than one outcome.

    in reply to: ECW Rule Recommendations / Warnings ??? #5309
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Our group has some rules for the ECW – http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/WWAE.htm

    They are inspired by Forlorn Hope but a lot more playable.

    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I use a variety depending on the type of game I want.

    For GNW I use the Polemos rules for large battles. A modified set of ECW rules for smaller actions. I have also been tweaking the Twilight of the Sun King rules for this war.

    For WSS it is the same modified ECW rules for smaller actions and Twilight of the Sun King rules for large battles. I also have tried a variant of the SYW rules below for this period with some success.

    For WAS/SYW it is the forthcoming Polemos rules generally. But I also use the old The Wargame/Charge rules on occasion.

    I don’t play so much AWI nowadays but I still play Loose Files and American Scramble from time to time.

    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    Personally I think the era has many of the best things of other periods, often to a greater extent than them, and also extra ‘pull’. For example the armies are more colourful than say a period like Napoleonics know for it’s colour. While there are many interesting and less well known battles, wars, armies, nations. This last probably is the reason for the popularity of imaginations set in this era – there were plenty of real similar nations around at this time. The period is also one of major developments in war from the earlier practices to the relatively modern practices of Napoleons time – it is a key period in the development of warfare.

    For me though this led to a diminishing interest in imaginations, reality is just a lot more interesting than anything you can make up. I did it in the past and kind of like the idea of trying again some time but I foolish sold my Spencer Smith armies some time ago. It is a similar story for me with AWI – I have played it but not greatly. What I just love is the historical battles in the first half or so of the century.

    Originally I was most interested in the SYW but then the search for the roots of warfare in this war led me to the GNW, which in turn led me to Marlborough’s wars. So in recent times my battles have been mainly in the early part of the century but I still love the SYW era as well. I suspect I will be revisiting the SYW era again in the future, or at least the WAS – a much under gamed war in my view. I also have started to dabble in Ottoman wars of this era, there are just so many possibilities.

    in reply to: Welcome to the General Horse and Musket Forum #2940
    Avatar photoHwiccee
    Participant

    I agree with Henry generally but if you take 18th century out and you already have Napoleonic and ACW out then what is left? Isn’t this de facto the 18th century forum.

    Maybe it might be better to put some dates in, not just here but elsewhere. Have this forum for say 1700 to 1785. Napoleonic is everything 1785 to 1840 (???) and ACW is everything from 1840 (or whatever you choose) to 1900. So change the names to, for example, Napoleonics (1785-1840).

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 123 total)