Wonder weapons

It seems that some players seem to attempt to create super troopers by equiping them with every known weapon to man.

So that we have lance armed Cuirassier with rifled carbines

I wonder, Lance's & Body armour were slowly going out of fashion in Western European armies.

Problem with the lance is it needs a highly skilled cavalryman to make most use of it effectivaly. Plus although it is initially a scary weapon, many cavalry men at the time doubted it's effectiveness, after the initial charge it is more an inbuggerence than a benefit, a sword armed opponent in a close melee has an advantage.

With the Cuirass, it is an extremly heavy piece of equipment, it requires a good horse to carry all the extra weight making it an expensive pastime, the shock value is impressive initially, but the need for keeping close order mens an advance at the trot is probably the best they could do, the incumberance of hte Armour restricts movement a great deal, should the rider become unhorsed the effect of him landing on his back was akin to a tortoise laid on its back, moving was not easy. Also horses were quickly winded, making units easy prey after the charge.

Rifles are interesting, they are an improvement over muskets, however a slow rate of fire makes them vunerable( hammers were issued to help knock bullets down the barrel) in close terrain they are dangerous, however in the open they are at a distinct disadvantage, due to the slow rate of fire. The Austrians did develop a double barreled weapon for some of their light troops with one barrel smooth & the other rifled, but I haven't found out how successful it was in battle I guess it was similar to a shot gun, but wether it was a side by side or an over & under model I don't know.

Battalion guns are also a great favorite, however much the boost infantry morale to have a cannon nearby, unfortunatly htey slow the infantry down they are attached to as units move at the speed of their slowest element. They also disperse the concentration of firepower.


I just wanted to point out that these wonder weapons have an initial impact on morale, seem also impressive, however there are also disadvantages to theoir uses, I'm not sure how far the rules reflect the disadvantages, maybe some of you have different views or have experienced the wrath of Agema with your military experiments.

Some one tried to have light infantry with skis (Austrian player )

Also re the lance nothing beats the Winged Hussars for lance work keep well out of the way of the wall of death if they charge you....

To Quote from Glory and Argument, one of the game supplements, which I think illustrates the point that many improvements are a mixed blessing, and few are a large gain in efficiency. (I encourage players to spend the money for these supplements. They often give you great ideas for research, important men you might not know of, etc.)

I would imagine most players pursue such advances to seek every possible advantage on the battlefield. I think how good your commanders and officers are probably have a much larger impact, but I've not seen (or thought of) a way to really assess that or impact it.

In the example below, it is a lot of work to squeeze out a 17% advantage (not counting the downsides) to one part of your siege force. My takeaway is that if you have the time and extra turn money to pursue these advances, go for it, but don't feel that you're really behind the game if you don't. I think for game balance reasons no truly large advantage can come from any advance or it just becomes a must-have for everybody.

From GLORY AND ARGUMENT:

Siege breechloading artillery piece

This is a potential research breakthrough, but in order to even attempt to research
this you must already know how to make light breechloading cannon and also how to drill bore cannon.

- drill bored cannon barrel with a breechloading screw-block.
- cost £12,000 per siege battery, upkeep as for a standard battery.

Production issues:
- the breech block has to be made with great care to prevent gases escaping to such an extent as to severely reduce muzzle velocity. Also, there is a risk that once worn through use the breech will be blown out backwards open a firing, proving a danger to the crew of the gun.

- we currently have no accurate information on how many times such a heavy breechloader could be used before the block became so worn as to become either dangerous or ineffective.

Field tests using a prototype would be necessary, but such an experiment is likely to prove dangerous to the testers and end in the destruction of the prototype.

- even with care some loss of gases is expected from the breech, but it will make a viable weapon, at least until worn. However, this minor loss of gas is likely to make the muzzle velocity inferior to that of a traditional muzzle-loading piece, perhaps by as much as 10%, albeit with a higher rate of fire and less need to expose gunners as much during the reloading procedure.  This would make working such pieces of benefit during sieges as the crew can hide behind gabions while reloading.

Battering ability - the main use of a siege cannon is to batter a breach in a fortress wall. In this capacity the breechloading siege cannon is estimated at being 10% less efficient than the smoothbore variety.

Rate of fire is significantly increased, increasing rate of fire from 1 round per 3 minutes to 1 round per 2 minutes (increasing to 1 round per 1 minute where well drilled or better gunners or employed). This could therefore be said to represent a 30% real increase in rate of fire, so with this factored into the equation there is a 10% reduction but with 30% more rounds delivered, meaning overall the breechloader’s are 17% more effective as siege pieces.

To avoid the risk of back-bursts via the loading block it is suggested that cannon barrels are replaced with new barrels after being involved in a battle, or during a siege, or after a session drilling. This could be achieved by having a Mobile Workshop to hand, having the advantage that barrel changes will have to be ordered but can be assumed. This is especially true to siege cannon since the force of a back-burst failure will be higher than for field pieces due to the greater power of such guns.

I agree with Deacon, the supplements are extremely useful and all worth getting hold of. On breechloaders, I seem to recall France in Game 6 went in for these early on, think the plan was to develop them for the artillery and infantry and re-equip the entire army. Not sure if the plan worked and, if it did, whether it would have made any difference.

On the "Wonder Weapons", I do tend to avoid them, at least in European settings. I only go with rifles, lances and cuirasses if I am being historical and the nation I am playing had units with them, and if so I do try to copy and only have the units that had them use them (if that makes sense).

Battalion guns-I don't often use them, for the mobility reasons. The exception is if I am playing a smaller power with limited resources/recruits, as a way of boosting their artillery-for example in Scotland you don't have any artillery to start with, other than a couple of battalion guns, so with few recruits it's a good way of giving the army some firepower.

However, with China, I do go in for "Wonder Weapons", not just things like rockets but repeating handheld crossbows (10 shots in 10 seconds), Kobulsons, paddle wheels, various improved rockets, kites, chemical weapons...the best bit is with them you are not trying to invent Napoleonic devices rather it is rediscovering old technologies that China abandoned for usually silly reasons.

All of the above is true, however the temptation for some of us is to raise only Armoured Cavalry, or Only lance armed troops. Whereas this dosen't reflect the historical ORBAT of the nations represented in the game, Maybe the use of light troops for recconisence is a neglected part of the game, where light troops try to dominate the countryside they are moving through. This would maybe encourage more SC, or free companies, Historically botth were not deemed frontline battlefield forces but were an important part of the overall strategy of the period. Reading the histories of some of the Original Hussar units that were formed, basically brigands in uniform, but they were effective at raidung & pillage.

Is was merely trying to point out that all the weapon advances have a down side which rarely seems to come to the fore in game turns, a badly trained lancer is as much a danger to himself & his comrades as to the enemy. Rifles are always a useful skirmish weapon but this was a frowned upon act considered dishonourable, probably because a good rifleman was inclined to target the officers first.
Armoured cavalry are all well & good but they should really have a higher upkeep cost due to the required quality of the horse.

Most of the weapons had an effect on morale but this is only a temporary improvement, as the down side often outweighs the morale advantage.

Maybe the answer is to go the drill route. In the case of China, for example, it's only highly drilled units who can effectively use rockets and crossbow (in the case of the latter that is actually historically inaccurate, the repeating crossbow was designed to be used effectively by undrilled, basically new recruits).

So, to use a lance effectively you need to be highly drilled, otherwise you are as likely to stick it in the ground, in a mate or your right eye, as in an enemy.

Not sure about the rifles, unless the rules state raising a rifle-armed unit losses you an honour point (I doubt that would go down well).

On light troops, aren't they still rare at this stage? That's why the rules are geared against raising them?

yup I think so regarding Lt Troops

For most of Europe, Light infantry is a research breakthrough that you need before you can use the units effectively.

I think it is also detailed in Glory and argument.

I do think that drilling is probably the easiest thing you can do improve your troops. Several of the weapons advances do mention that they'll work better with well drilled troops.

To a degree. Dragoons are a form of light infantry.

Dragoons were initially a way of getting Infantry mobile, over time the balance of Infantry/Mounted role tipped to the Mounted role, albeit Napoleon still had regiments of dismounted dragoons, but that ahd more to do with a lack of horses than anything else.

Also regarding Dragoons, Dragoon Guards were raised in England basically to save money, similarly equipt as Horse even with Cuirass but due to the pay scales of the time receiving less pay as a Dragoon Trooper than as a Horse trooper.

Light Troops were in exsistence but they were regarded by many as the lowest of the low by many officers of the time, It may have had something to do with the command & control of the men in action , or maybe because they were often raised for a short time before they were disbanded, hence little time to get disipline installed.

It may only be a personal opinion, but there often seems to be great write up on the major battles, but little is said of the day to day skirmishing & war of the outposts, which make up the bulk of the warefare any period, possiably an avenue for those playing Characters in LGDR.

Light troops were considered by the Generals & other Conservative members of society to be unruly, illdisiplined, likley to desert & probably a danger to their own baggage trayne, Possaibly raising too many could have an impact on Honour, not oo sure if Richard takes it into account. I know I lost a couple of points when I introduced Mitres intead of tricorns for the Grenadiers, albeit it was the historically correct headdress for that troop type.

Possiably we are all a little blinded by the shining success of Light troops in the Napoleonic era & try to do a retro fit on the 1700s.

I'd agree about light troops and the Napoleonics. I sometimes thinks that applies to other parts of the game

Some light troops were active during this period but not in the massed Napoleonic fashion. Catalan Light Troops were active in Spain with the Pro-Hapsburg Armies during the War of the Spanish Succession and Grenzer type Serb and Croat irregulars served with the Austrians in the Balkans. I believe some rifle armed troops from the Tyrol also served with the Austria Hapsburgs during this period. The Catalans and Grenzers acted more as raiders and irregulars, attacking lines of communication and isolated outposts, rather than forming up with the main field army.

Kingmaker wrote:Some one tried to have light infantry with skis (Austrian player )

Also re the lance nothing beats the Winged Hussars for lance work keep well out of the way of the wall of death if they charge you....  

Agree that Lance armed, Elite armoured cavalry like the Winged Hussars and Saphi of the Porte etc are deadly on a nice open battlefield and look really nice leading your victory parades. But in many ways they are a very limited Troop type since they are of no use for -

1) Storming fortified positions or street fighting.
2) In rough terrain inc river crossings.
3) Are of limited value for Scouting and raiding

And they get really snotty if you ask them to guard supply wagons and do picket duty!

Basically all troop types are great of for SOME operations but crap at others and their are no super troop types which will beat everyone in all circumstances.

Unlike "scabble" since no one has bolt action rifles the same comments can be said about weapons .......what can be said some are more suitable for some troops/situations than others.

Personally in G2 I liked to equip my Albanian light Infantry skirmishers with rifles so they could skirmish from outside of musket range....and really depress Line troops who were unable to reply. But against Hapsburg skirmish screens of Grenzer Lt Infantry with muskets they struggled due to their rivals superior rate of fire.

I also like Pikes, Lances and bows for troops who come from from correct cultural background such as Swedish foot, Winged Hussars & Tartar Light Horse. But view attempts to re-introduce them to western Europe etc as asking for trouble!

My view of Armies in Glori is that you will start with a basic force and if you stick to the starting proportions & equip them with historic weapons for that army. Plus add a bit more artillery and some specialists like Engineers you are good to go on campaign........And you can start worrying about the really important part of any campaign......HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FEED THEM!

Ref improvements to your basic weapons.......I enjoy R & D. But looking at the example of breach loading siege artillery......a 17-30% increase in fire power ! But does it really give you a edge over a player with a more "backwards" position (Like Russia or the Ottomans) who uses same money as you have on a breach loading siege battery to raise X2 normal siege batteries for a 100% increase in fire power?

Finally......why to Chinese players have all these strange weapons to "find" could it be that they were in use with the highly "technical" and "advanced" Sung & Ming Armies which got smashed by well lead Mongol & Manchu armies based on "backwards" but very tough and skilled Horse Archers?

I think a really good set of comments by Stuart here. Which is one of the reasons I would always avoid going to war against Stuart because he understands the game so well. After 25 years of playing Agema games, Stuart gets my vote for being the best player.

Basileus wrote:I think a really good set of comments by Stuart here. Which is one of the reasons I would always avoid going to war against Stuart because he understands the game so well. After 25 years of playing Agema games, Stuart gets my vote for being the best player.

Thanks for the vote but I guess it depends what you mean by "best" since in a game with so many objectives and ways to play everyone has their own strengths and weakness.

Being a old style war gamer (recruited via advert in Miniture Wargames Mag) I am probably one of the more effective Army commanders in the game........hell I survived an attack by France, Spain, Genoa, L-C, Ireland & Portugal with no allies. But since I got myself in that position in the first place I am probably well down list as a diplomat!

Tie between the Doge of Venice in G9 & Jason Flower as best diplomat. Jason in terms of making sure that a position has diplomatic security. Austrians attack Vienna and even storm Berlin and within a month Russia, Poland, Sweden & the Ottomans have declared war on Austria. But how did Doge talk Spain into giving them Milan? Then run rings round the Emperor?

Note sure about best Naval Commander since so much seems to be based in position and cash spent.

Best "social" skills vote has to go to Hesse Darmstadt in G2 who used to write orders in the form of a letter to his friend (played by GM) including complaints about the Elector's mother and got on so well with some other players that they used to ignore nasty political stuff in favour of writing about art, music etc. General view was that attacking Hesse-Darmstadt would be viewed as "unsporting" and your Orchestra would probably go on strike. My Orchestra deserted me after a unfortunate disagreement with the Janissary Corp.

Not sure why but I am fairly sure Richard has many of my character's marked down as.......well thats say if this was a Western they would have black hats.

Ref best player of Agents............its a secret but one person on this forum at least does seem to know rather a lot about agents.

Best Roll Player...........I enjoyed the first Ottoman Sultan I ever played with but I also liked the HWIC player & the Jacobites in G7. mi

On the Chinese weapons, You're roughly right Stuart but with the Celestial Empire the real problem is the cylindrical nature of Chinese history-new dynasty displaces old corrupt one; new dynasty starts off being energetic, developing the state, expanding the empire, has good armies and (if it has them) makes good use of its technological advantages; then it gets complacent, it runs its armies down, recruits tend to be unhappy conscripts or criminals who enlist instead of go to prison, and the worst elements get sent to the far borders where they are hardly effective, the state administration becomes corrupt...and then a new dynasty displaces them...and it all starts again!
Like you say, the Mongul and Manchus were bloody tough...now good troops with advanced weapons could have held them...but not what the empire had. It's a bit like Libya under Gadaffi, he spent a lot on buying loads of modern weapons from the West and the Soviet Block, but his troops weren't largely up to using them properly (due to poor training etc).

Going off at a bit of a tangent but Stuart mentioned naval commanders, maybe it's do to with when I have been playing games but I can't recall any large scale naval battles between fleets-plenty of naval attacks on harbours, cruisers seizing merchants...

Dont really know enough about China or its weapons to comment on how effective or otherwise some of them are.

But taking the Far East as a cultural whole were good idea's spread ie to Japan via Korea or to and from Steppe areas to farming area's. I think its noticable that:

1) Chinese swords technology spread and were modified and in some ways improved by Sword Smiths in Japan, Korea etc. Problem is its hard to say best Japanese Swords are better than Spanish Swords or Indian Swords and Wako Should have advantage in boarding actions because most people have basic stuff rather than the best stuff we now see.

2) Mongols, Manchu, Japanese etc adopted Chinese Siege Weapons but then switched to European Influenced Cannon.

3) Apart from Indo-China no one seems to have adopted the Chinese Style Cross Bow inc repeaters and the Steppe Powers, Korea & Japan stayed loyal to their Composite Bows.

But the Japanese adopted fire-arms within a couple of years of seeing the first Dutch Models. But only for lower class troops which seems to imply the new weapons were easy to make and use but were inferior to a highly trained archer.

I suspect that Chinese Cross Bows were both inferior to composite bows in hands of highly trained archers and more complex and expensive to make than fire arms.

- Finally I wonder if adoption of some of the more fancy weapons in Chinese armies may not reflect an attempt to counter a decline in morale and troop quality. In much the same way as French Napoleonic armies reintroduced battalion guns and body armour in attempts to improve morale.........that or bored civil servents trying to impress the Emperor and secure their next promotion.

Bit like Chinese players trying to work out how they can impress the Emperor and gain their next honour point with the introduction of Tiger Suits.

Going off topic I think fleet actions are so common as land battles due to couple of reasons: 1) The difficulty of finding a Fleet at sea.....Fleets can move hundreds of miles in a month 2) Many armies are roughly balanced so if you are a German, Russian or Ottoman Commander you are probably happy to take on a French or English force of equal size but would you order your Fleet to sail out and engage equal number of French or English? Knowing the opposition could have crack crews and 1st rates in the line?

To have a proper full on Naval Battle you basically need player a) To put his Fleet outside a major hostile port(s) and blockade.....thus offering challenge to opposition to fight and b) A opponent who feels he can take this challenge up with a realistic chance of success.

The latest battles I have known followed this format a) G2 Siege of Lisbon by Phillip of Anjou........English Fleet of over 100 Sail of Line defeated Spanish Fleet of same size and broke Naval Blockade of Lisbon sending 10 Spanish Prizes into Lisbon. Pity for the English was that Phillip attacked and stormed Lisbon the same month taking back their captured ships and English Prize Crews to boot. & b) In G7 the English Fleet attacked French Fleet blocking trade to London & Thames ports and was driven off.........ten English Ships later sunk at sea, French equally damaged did not sink as still in sheltered waters.

In terms of losses the worst Naval disasters I have known was the destruction of a Russian Fleet on blockade duty by the Swedes in G7with 25 Russian Ships sunk and the total disaster Venice suffered at hands of Sultan in G2 which cost it an Army and a Navy when it decided to reinforce its position in Greece by using Line Ships etc has Cavalry Transports. This is what happens when you build a fleet on Lineships only and do not bother with those boring and useless Transport Ships!

Fortunately for Venice their Admiral just surrendered (50 line ships!) and the Sultan had sent them a treaty just prior to the disaster which offered good terms and POW exchange...... which they just signed to recover their Military. I wonder to this day if the Fleets meet in the Adriatic rather than passing in the Night because Venice had recieved a good treaty offer from the Sultan but the new doge still seemed keen of fighting. Without having taken the time to find out what he was up against (x3 active Ottoman's).

Its probable the War would have been a total disaster for the Army of Venice if they had carried out the Doge plan and invaded Rumelia from the Sea. The Grand Vizier was heartbroken when the Senate talked to Doge round to get its Army, Fleet & Trade back and he did not get his war to save Rumelia from the nasty Crusaders:cry:

He really wanted to lead the Ghazi against Dragoons and into Italy......sun, plunder, pillage! And the Sultan and his Naval Victory without a shot fired got him a campaign in Moldavia against Winged Hussars and the like instead. Great Naval victory phah.......I still think it was a put up job!

Don't know if these would be classed as 'wonder weapons' but, for all you nations who might send dogs into battle, we do things differently in Rozwi!

Leopard on a leash


Lion on a leash


Might require a specialist stud farm to train them, however. Plus, hand reared animals might work best and then conditioned to battle. Hmm, ideas!

Of course, I can't see any downside to using semi-wild animals as part of an army ... what could go wrong?!

Thought at first you were referring to the scary ladies...

Is G10 going to develop a theme of who can keep the most dangerous animals?

First we had Montbars keeping his pet crocodiles in the moat of St Louis Ndar now we have the Changamire of Rozwi wanting to keep giant sized pussy cats!

Or does he wish to have his own version of the Dahomey Amazons?

The earliest account of the Dahomey Amazons date from 1734 when the corp already existed and were gun armed except for scouting bow girls. Plus a bladed weapon which could be used to saw off heads and other bits of their defeated foes! The very best "recruits" also provided wives and concubines for the ruler.

Oddly they seem to have been recruited via a system very much like the Ottoman system used to recruit the Janissary Corp.

So in game terms you are going to give Richard a bunch of head hunting Janissaries likely the get hormonial when that bloody lion rips up the soft furnishings. Plus you are going to give him rival wives/court factions with links to the guards.

I suggest the Changamire goes on campaign and stays on campaign because he is not safe at home!

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Or does he wish to have his own version of the Dahomey Amazons?

Already got some ... Though they use guard dogs to protect the Changamire's cougars - but that's enough about the royal women!

As for exotic pets and expeditions to get some, watch this space - unless you read about it first in the newspaper, it having all gone wrong and there's bits of Rozwi flesh all over the South African Cape. Then it really will have all gone to the dogs - literally! (in a fictional, play-by-mail sort of way)

some one nicked my monkey in G7 .....

Kingmaker wrote:some one nicked my monkey in G7 .....  

A classic post from a Prussian in G7..........Louis XIV declares war the second the treaty between France & the Holy Roman Empire ends and invades the HRE in the west.

So how do the Elector of Brandenburg & his Officer Corp respond to the crisis????? With and by writing off any Imperial Province on the west Bank of the Rhine ie Flanders, Baden, Lorraine, Pfalz etc and worrying about pet-napping :

But fear not noble readers....not all Imperialists have been demoralized by theft of their monkey. And enough remain to give the various "wonder weapons" now in use by both sides a proper field test. Earlier tests have indicate:

1) Lance......great weapon for recruits brought up from early boyhood in a Lance Culture......for others its a liability.

2) Rockets.......should be banned as equally dangerous to own side, oppenents and no side at all. May be handy for a small infantry force in the middle of a huge cavalry force or for turkish style terror tactics ref a town.

3) Carronades.....very handy at close range but marked reducution in firepowder at long and medium ranges. Expensive and only really of use to aggressive types willing to get close & personal.

4) Swedish Cavalry Wedge......not really a weapon. Early tests show promise but suspect it only works well for very well trained, high moral troops and Swedes. Bit like Swedes storming fortress after fortress in last war with pure guts and ladders.

Rockets: 10% can be expected to hit target, 10-25% can be expected to explode before they should, land somewhere it should not (on own troops) or otherwise cause trouble. It depends on training of battery crew. The rest will go in the general direction of the target under good wind conditions, strong wind can push a rocket very far away from target.

Swedish Cavalry wedge: I had to try this of course in my non-Swedish army but was clearly warned that the chances it would go horribly wrong in battle was significant. Advised to either get a Swedish mission to train our cavalry or get a cavalry Academy to develop a (probably inferior) cavalry wedge.

Anyone want to buy a second hand monkey? Has a strange accent...

So we've now going to have packs of wolves, lions, tigers and llamas sent into battle...I'm just waiting for someone to try and train killer whales to attack enemy warships...

To be vaguely serious for a second, have had to do some reading on the English Civil War/British Civil War/War of Three Kingdoms for various reasons and come across the use of the lance by Scottish light cavalry, with some sources suggesting they were using a "light" lance used by Reivers before their suppression. I could be tempted eventually, in G10, to try and re-raise a couple of such squadrons to act as shock troops, or maybe as raiders. I think it would take some development work as my personal view would be that they
a) would need to be light cavalry (not horse nor dragoons)
b) would need a different type of lance

(b) shouldn't be an issue as it would simply be a case of 'rediscovering' a weapon last used 50 years ago. (a) might be a problem...though given the slightly odd status of Scotland's military (e.g. lots of tribal infantry-the only in Western Europe?), the ability to form a (small) number of non-standard cavalry might not be insurmountable...