Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
In other news game 8 arrived today, but no sign of game 3 which had deadline before game 8. But things are moving again.
+14
Stuart Bailey
Richard D. Watts
Kingmaker
Basileus
Frank
The Hessian
Ardagor
Regor
Deacon
jamesbond007
baggins
Goldstar
tek_604
count-de-monet
18 posters
G7 - France vs. England
Ardagor- Prince
- Number of posts : 427
Age : 54
Location : Haugesund, Norway
Reputation : 15
Registration date : 2008-04-20
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I dropped richard a note on this since I thought my game 3 might have gone missing, and he said he was working on game 3 now, so indeed, things are moving!
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2606
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 61
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Jason wrote:I think I can report that not only has France a large, powerful and well-trained army...it also has the prettiest
Even prettier than Polish Hussars? The Saphi of the Porte? And the Manchu Elite?
Personally I think the French look daft trying to use the Lance with a Tricorne hat and who decided to put cooking pots (sorry I mean Schomberg metal dragoon helmet) on the Dragons?
Finally this army includes Le Regiment du Fashion Disaster...........also known as the Dragons de Chevau-Legers, 16 Regiment of Dragons.
Along with the metal cooking pot (trying fighting on foot in that or launching a suprise attack) these unfortunates have yellow coats, red facings, green cuffs, collars and breeches and mauve saddle cloths. Ugh! Have the French never heard the expression yellow and green should never be seen. Also yellow? For a military uniform before colour fast dyes! French Dragons are either yellow or unable to fight in the rain.
Personally, I think the only true colour for a Military Coat is Red so its not ruined by a few Blood Stains but I note the HRE was too tight to even pay for any dyes his mens coats. Thought it has to be said that the "whitecoats" do seem to have better muskets, artillery and horses than their opponents.
I also suspect that Jason G8 experience of pirate fighting is going to be of more use than fancy collars and cuffs. By time this is over I expect a article in the next Carte Blanche entited "WAKO V SEA BEGGERS & OTHER OTHER SEA SCUM"........Fighting pirates in the East & the West.
Guest- Guest
Bah, you're just jealous that only the French have true fashion style...and aren't scared of seeing their own blood 
Hmmm...maybe the Eternal Empire should send a fleet to the barbarian lands to show them how to deal with pirates...or is that what is about to happen in G7 anyway
Hmmm...maybe the Eternal Empire should send a fleet to the barbarian lands to show them how to deal with pirates...or is that what is about to happen in G7 anyway
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
I would agree with Jason, his army details are incredibly detailed, down to the colour of the cuffs on the uniforms, but old Louis never got round to training them! 
I was just amazed. Old Louis was quite a player. I think in one of the previous conversation threads he was of the opinion that his troops out fought mine, fair enough, but my men were just holding the ground whilst fortifications were being built around Besancon.
In the end Jason I dont think those pretty uniforms help much. However, if we meet in battle you will certainly win on satorial elegance, which was quite important in the eighteenth century
I was just amazed. Old Louis was quite a player. I think in one of the previous conversation threads he was of the opinion that his troops out fought mine, fair enough, but my men were just holding the ground whilst fortifications were being built around Besancon. In the end Jason I dont think those pretty uniforms help much. However, if we meet in battle you will certainly win on satorial elegance, which was quite important in the eighteenth century
Guest- Guest
Look at it this way...if I can find a way of not having to slaughter half the armies of Europe and get peace instead...not only will my honour guards at the subsequent peace talks banquets be well turned out, I will also be able to provide the best food
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2606
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 61
Registration date : 2012-01-29
[quote="Jason"]Bah, you're just jealous that only the French have true fashion style...and aren't scared of seeing their own blood
Spoken like a true Frenchman..............rarely can one comment have insulted so many different peoples on so many different levels .........you are a worthy follower in the foot steps of RKL.........I salute you Sir!
Spoken like a true Frenchman..............rarely can one comment have insulted so many different peoples on so many different levels .........you are a worthy follower in the foot steps of RKL.........I salute you Sir!
Guest- Guest
Hold on...you mean Boris Johnson and the Duke of Edinburgh are both french????
Guest- Guest
Stuart Bailey wrote:
Personally I think the French look daft trying to use the Lance with a Tricorne hat and who decided to put cooking pots (sorry I mean Schomberg metal dragoon helmet) on the Dragons?
Well Stuart, you seem to have taken offence at French uniforms, so I will explain. You are right that tricornes with lances don't seem to work that well, such minor details are ironed out during combat, and can be changed easily enough. However, finding a suitable hat which would work with a lance and was French (rather than Polish or Russian), eluded me at the time. I'm sure if the new player wanted to change it, he could.
As for the dragoon helmet, I thought that should have been obvious by the name. Marshall Schomberg was a French Hugenot who fought for France with distinction and later for Prussia. At the time the dragoon uniforms were designed France was allied to Prussia and Saxony against (surprise, surprise, Leopold). The adoption of the helmet was in part a diplomatic move and a tribute to those gallant French allies. Regrettably they left the game shortly afterwards, but I see no reason to be petty and change the helmet.
As for the dragoon helmet, I thought that should have been obvious by the name. Marshall Schomberg was a French Hugenot who fought for France with distinction and later for Prussia. At the time the dragoon uniforms were designed France was allied to Prussia and Saxony against (surprise, surprise, Leopold). The adoption of the helmet was in part a diplomatic move and a tribute to those gallant French allies. Regrettably they left the game shortly afterwards, but I see no reason to be petty and change the helmet.
Stuart Bailey wrote:
Finally this army includes Le Regiment du Fashion Disaster...........also known as the Dragons de Chevau-Legers, 16 Regiment of Dragons.
Along with the metal cooking pot (trying fighting on foot in that or launching a suprise attack) these unfortunates have yellow coats, red facings, green cuffs, collars and breeches and mauve saddle cloths. Ugh! Have the French never heard the expression yellow and green should never be seen. Also yellow? For a military uniform before colour fast dyes! French Dragons are either yellow or unable to fight in the rain.
If your spies had reported correctly, you would know that the early dragoon regiments were all called Dragons de Chevaux-Legers (which is simply French for light horse dragoons). When subsequent regiments were raised, Richard referred to them merely as dragoons, a typo which I never bothered correcting. If you look at the picture, below, it is really rather fetching and distinctive:
French dragoons were not required to fight on foot (as a general rule), and uniforms are meant to be seen. Other cavalry uniforms are perhaps a little more conventional, but I wanted them to be very visible to the generals so they could not be confused with other types of cavalry. As the new French player has no doubt discovered, the French army is very comprehensive with lots of specialised troops designed to have specific strengths and fight in a particular way.
Basilieus is right that I did neglect drill up to a point, but it was on the list once formations were sorted out. By declaring war when you did, you certainly interrupted drill schedules. However, drill is most useful in prolonged firefights which is not how I required the majority of French forces to fight. Line infantry should be drilled, but it is not so necessary with others. We only met once when your drill could have given you a benefit, namely when you were on a hill outside Bescancon. The skirmishes over a few months (Heralds November 1704-March 1705) proved that French Voltigeurs were not as effective as expected (due mainly to boots and not being trained as elite light infantry), but also that French artillery (despite the large number of light artillery pieces) was devastating enough without drill to take General Bagni off his horse. Low powder and a mix-up in French orders meant the real lessons would not be given until April 1705, when according to the Herald report:
"The Austrian 5th Army surprised Marshal Catinat by emerging from its strong defensive position and going over to the offensive! They pushed forward over their own gabion lines and with drums rattling moved forward into the marshy stream ahead which movement threw the infantry into utter disorder. At this moment the French artillery opened a lively fire upon them with 14 batteries of 12pdrs and 4pdrs which fact, coupled with the mess his infantry were already getting into, caused General Bagni to fret somewhat but he maintained his nerve as his proud grenadiers, formed in two lines of ten and nine battalions respectively, mounted the far bank of the stream with four squadrons of horse to either flank. At the same time Jagers started to pour out in skirmish order from the woods to either side of the cavalry. Bagni was surprised at the ferocity and power of the French artillery, whom he had assumed would have been short of gunpowder and served by men in a much worse state than seems to be the case. The weight of fire was sufficient to cause his right wing cavalry to hold back, although the gap was filled with Jager as they fanned out. Of more serious concern was the halting of the grenadiers in the centre. Bagni’s officers couldn’t get them to advance further, and so they deployed their battalion artillery to return fire. An extended exchange of cannon fire resulted, with the Austrian pieces in particular shooting with a commendable rate of fire. This actually proved sufficient to silence most of the French batteries before their own infantry, the rest smartly - but without panic - being limbered and taken to a position safely behind Catinat’s foot. The Austrian left wing cavalry had during this exchange been badly mauled, leaving Bagni with Jager on either flank and his grenadiers in the centre in some disorder but in tangible fighting formations as the lines were being dressed. At this juncture Bagni was struck from his horse. He was wounded and carried from the field, and as he was the Austrian line retired back over the stream, seeking some protection from its banks, and then fell back further to redeploy on its old position. As they did so a large number of their horsemen quit the field and deserted."
This suggests that Austrian artillery did benefit from their drill, but despite Leopold's gravity-defying honour score, his troops refused to advance against the morally superior, and far better looking and professional French forces. Instead, they stopped in the middle of the battlefield and were shot to pieces, and Bagni was wounded again. To add insult to injury, rather a lot of your cavalry deserted. If I remember rightly, then earlier on this thread you lamented the poor performance of your forces that day! It is hard to understand why they did so badly: they had everything in their favour: attacking a weaker enemy, downhill with crack grenadier regiments supported by Jager and cavalry. Perhaps one reason is that French forces were fighting to avenge the wrong you had done, that the uniforms helped foster loyalty to their commanders, increased morale, and the specialist structure of French forces allowed Marshall Catinat to deploy units to serve their strengths. Taken together I hoped you would have learned not to underestimate the French.
Basilieus is right that I did neglect drill up to a point, but it was on the list once formations were sorted out. By declaring war when you did, you certainly interrupted drill schedules. However, drill is most useful in prolonged firefights which is not how I required the majority of French forces to fight. Line infantry should be drilled, but it is not so necessary with others. We only met once when your drill could have given you a benefit, namely when you were on a hill outside Bescancon. The skirmishes over a few months (Heralds November 1704-March 1705) proved that French Voltigeurs were not as effective as expected (due mainly to boots and not being trained as elite light infantry), but also that French artillery (despite the large number of light artillery pieces) was devastating enough without drill to take General Bagni off his horse. Low powder and a mix-up in French orders meant the real lessons would not be given until April 1705, when according to the Herald report:
"The Austrian 5th Army surprised Marshal Catinat by emerging from its strong defensive position and going over to the offensive! They pushed forward over their own gabion lines and with drums rattling moved forward into the marshy stream ahead which movement threw the infantry into utter disorder. At this moment the French artillery opened a lively fire upon them with 14 batteries of 12pdrs and 4pdrs which fact, coupled with the mess his infantry were already getting into, caused General Bagni to fret somewhat but he maintained his nerve as his proud grenadiers, formed in two lines of ten and nine battalions respectively, mounted the far bank of the stream with four squadrons of horse to either flank. At the same time Jagers started to pour out in skirmish order from the woods to either side of the cavalry. Bagni was surprised at the ferocity and power of the French artillery, whom he had assumed would have been short of gunpowder and served by men in a much worse state than seems to be the case. The weight of fire was sufficient to cause his right wing cavalry to hold back, although the gap was filled with Jager as they fanned out. Of more serious concern was the halting of the grenadiers in the centre. Bagni’s officers couldn’t get them to advance further, and so they deployed their battalion artillery to return fire. An extended exchange of cannon fire resulted, with the Austrian pieces in particular shooting with a commendable rate of fire. This actually proved sufficient to silence most of the French batteries before their own infantry, the rest smartly - but without panic - being limbered and taken to a position safely behind Catinat’s foot. The Austrian left wing cavalry had during this exchange been badly mauled, leaving Bagni with Jager on either flank and his grenadiers in the centre in some disorder but in tangible fighting formations as the lines were being dressed. At this juncture Bagni was struck from his horse. He was wounded and carried from the field, and as he was the Austrian line retired back over the stream, seeking some protection from its banks, and then fell back further to redeploy on its old position. As they did so a large number of their horsemen quit the field and deserted."
This suggests that Austrian artillery did benefit from their drill, but despite Leopold's gravity-defying honour score, his troops refused to advance against the morally superior, and far better looking and professional French forces. Instead, they stopped in the middle of the battlefield and were shot to pieces, and Bagni was wounded again. To add insult to injury, rather a lot of your cavalry deserted. If I remember rightly, then earlier on this thread you lamented the poor performance of your forces that day! It is hard to understand why they did so badly: they had everything in their favour: attacking a weaker enemy, downhill with crack grenadier regiments supported by Jager and cavalry. Perhaps one reason is that French forces were fighting to avenge the wrong you had done, that the uniforms helped foster loyalty to their commanders, increased morale, and the specialist structure of French forces allowed Marshall Catinat to deploy units to serve their strengths. Taken together I hoped you would have learned not to underestimate the French.
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
Very poor health Louis. They had been in the field too long 
I gambled that your troops hadnt been rested, when I think they must have been. I think you possibly had two armies in the field at the time outside Besancon? I attacked with a poor sick list, I just thought yours was worse, mistake on my side 
I gambled that your troops hadnt been rested, when I think they must have been. I think you possibly had two armies in the field at the time outside Besancon? I attacked with a poor sick list, I just thought yours was worse, mistake on my side
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Well, I could be wrong, but I'd bet that paying for custom uniforms for you men does pay off in them having better morale. So jokes about the 'pretty french troops' aside, I do think there is a point to it even if you don't bother with all the fiddly details.
There seem to be a lot of ways to impact the quality of your troops from equipment, to better technology, to training. How they all stack up, only Richard knows for certain!
Guest- Guest
Basileus wrote:Very poor health Louis. They had been in the field too long
Fair points. Your original plan seemed to be to goad France into attacking a strongly defended position. This was never my intention. So I brought one army to act as an army of observation so I could track where you were, and later a second to even up the numbers. From reports I estimated your original forces to be 10 Jager, 20 Grenadiers, 20 Horse (or dragoons), plus various artillery and a garrison in Besancon itself. That is quite a considerable reconnaissance force. Your defensive position was well chosen as despite several attempts I couldn't find a way of turning your flank. However, you were not going anywhere and so the majority of French forces were split with most of the cavalry/dragoons sent off in various directions and infantry split into 3: a contingent under Marshall de Noailles to check the defences of Besancon itself, a further contingent held in reserve, which left only a small number of French troops facing yours. OK, so it broke the convention of never dividing your force in front of the enemy, but it was more important that I intercepted any reinforcements, which I did, outside Belfort. The move to Belfort should have cut off your supplies, though despite the existence of fortified lines, early warning systems and the like, this didn't seem to work as effectively as I hoped. If you had checked the numbers before you launched the attack I don't think you would have hesitated.
As you were left exposed on a hill throughout the winter, your troops probably were in poor condition by April. This was France's published aim, yet as usual you chose to ignore it. I was always surprised that you always discounted anything I said I would do, and then acted surprised when I did it. I told you your troops would rot on the hilltop, yet you constructed defences to make sure they did! They should have been in much worse condition had French voltigeurs been sniping at them as they should have! However, as it was I can't criticize you for launching your attack. I would have attacked earlier at which point you would almost certainly have won for the reasons stated.
Some French troops were also in rather poor condition with an average SL of 5 and some individual units down to 7. I was also low on ammunition and powder, though by April this had been sorted. I never really grasped how to get supply orders done under the new system and was still paying £5,000/turn to buy supplies thinking this was working when it wasn't!
Despite these points, the difference in quality and specialism of the French army was proved a month later when I decided to assault your much weakened force. A proper plan was prepared, King Louis had arrived and the report read:
"North-east of Besancon in the encampment of the 5th Army, General von Bagni has recovered from his wounds. In the French encampment opposite Bagni’s position cheers were heard for no less a person of renown than Louis XIV, the King, who had arrived after narrowly avoiding capture at the hands of the Prince of Vaudemont’s cuirassiers en route! His coach was chased down for some miles until his coach driver lost the pursuers in a wood. Now safely with his field forces, His Most Christian Majesty listened to the concerns of both officers and men, especially those of the Regiment de Nattancourt. The moment of the King’s arrival was captured for posterity by the painter Nicholas de Largillière. ... Back over to the north-east, from Louis XIV’s encampments, one night French infantry moved forward toward the Austrian lines in the field, dropped a large number of fascines into the marshy stream to their front, and went in directly against the Austrian fieldworks with bayonets fixed. To their astonishment they found them to be deserted! Where is the 5th Army and Bagni? Not where they had been expected, that much is for sure. Over the next few days the painter Jean-Baptiste Oudry produced a work showing French standards triumphantly planted on vacated Austrian field works before Besancon. It seems as if both sides are having trouble accurately assessing where their enemy have gone."
In contrast to Austrian attack, the French attack was properly structured and resourced, my troops crossed over the stream in good order, ready to storm your fieldworks, yet you had fled. No French casualties. So over the course of the 6 month engagement, you marched into an undefended town, took up a position on a hill, stayed there over winter, lost a chunk of cavalry and had your crack grenadiers shot to bits before withdrawing to lick your wounds. French losses amounted to a few guns and the odd infantry battalion and dragoon squadron. OK, so by fleeing you robbed me of the victory I had hoped for, but not even your propaganda machine could represent these events as an Austrian victory. Like the rest of your campaign it was totally unnecessary, very costly and achieved nothing other than weakening your cause.
No doubt we shall see over the next few months whether French quality and specialism, astutely and intelligently deployed, will beat the hordes of Austrian mercenaries and their allies.
As you were left exposed on a hill throughout the winter, your troops probably were in poor condition by April. This was France's published aim, yet as usual you chose to ignore it. I was always surprised that you always discounted anything I said I would do, and then acted surprised when I did it. I told you your troops would rot on the hilltop, yet you constructed defences to make sure they did! They should have been in much worse condition had French voltigeurs been sniping at them as they should have! However, as it was I can't criticize you for launching your attack. I would have attacked earlier at which point you would almost certainly have won for the reasons stated.
Some French troops were also in rather poor condition with an average SL of 5 and some individual units down to 7. I was also low on ammunition and powder, though by April this had been sorted. I never really grasped how to get supply orders done under the new system and was still paying £5,000/turn to buy supplies thinking this was working when it wasn't!
Despite these points, the difference in quality and specialism of the French army was proved a month later when I decided to assault your much weakened force. A proper plan was prepared, King Louis had arrived and the report read:
"North-east of Besancon in the encampment of the 5th Army, General von Bagni has recovered from his wounds. In the French encampment opposite Bagni’s position cheers were heard for no less a person of renown than Louis XIV, the King, who had arrived after narrowly avoiding capture at the hands of the Prince of Vaudemont’s cuirassiers en route! His coach was chased down for some miles until his coach driver lost the pursuers in a wood. Now safely with his field forces, His Most Christian Majesty listened to the concerns of both officers and men, especially those of the Regiment de Nattancourt. The moment of the King’s arrival was captured for posterity by the painter Nicholas de Largillière. ... Back over to the north-east, from Louis XIV’s encampments, one night French infantry moved forward toward the Austrian lines in the field, dropped a large number of fascines into the marshy stream to their front, and went in directly against the Austrian fieldworks with bayonets fixed. To their astonishment they found them to be deserted! Where is the 5th Army and Bagni? Not where they had been expected, that much is for sure. Over the next few days the painter Jean-Baptiste Oudry produced a work showing French standards triumphantly planted on vacated Austrian field works before Besancon. It seems as if both sides are having trouble accurately assessing where their enemy have gone."
In contrast to Austrian attack, the French attack was properly structured and resourced, my troops crossed over the stream in good order, ready to storm your fieldworks, yet you had fled. No French casualties. So over the course of the 6 month engagement, you marched into an undefended town, took up a position on a hill, stayed there over winter, lost a chunk of cavalry and had your crack grenadiers shot to bits before withdrawing to lick your wounds. French losses amounted to a few guns and the odd infantry battalion and dragoon squadron. OK, so by fleeing you robbed me of the victory I had hoped for, but not even your propaganda machine could represent these events as an Austrian victory. Like the rest of your campaign it was totally unnecessary, very costly and achieved nothing other than weakening your cause.
No doubt we shall see over the next few months whether French quality and specialism, astutely and intelligently deployed, will beat the hordes of Austrian mercenaries and their allies.
Guest- Guest
Deacon, as you are interested in uniforms, you might like this one of the Jacobite regiments raised by France with the distinctive Bourbon tartan:
The detail of the tartan, specially designed:
The collars and cuff descriptions were probably a bit unnecessary, but there is a pattern to them all. Ordinary line infantry have fairly standard, basic uniforms, with the more elite and specialist units adding more red to the design and even more fancy hats. It may seem confusing until you see them all side by side and then you will understand that it allows the ordinary fusilier (the lowest of the infantry) progression mirrored by his uniform, to reach the heights of the Guard Grenadiers. Colonial units had brown leather rather than black, though most of those uniforms existed only on paper. There are also distinctive uniforms for medics, engineers, all different types of cavalry. Naval uniforms would have been introduced, but I don't think I managed to get the order done.
The detail of the tartan, specially designed:
The collars and cuff descriptions were probably a bit unnecessary, but there is a pattern to them all. Ordinary line infantry have fairly standard, basic uniforms, with the more elite and specialist units adding more red to the design and even more fancy hats. It may seem confusing until you see them all side by side and then you will understand that it allows the ordinary fusilier (the lowest of the infantry) progression mirrored by his uniform, to reach the heights of the Guard Grenadiers. Colonial units had brown leather rather than black, though most of those uniforms existed only on paper. There are also distinctive uniforms for medics, engineers, all different types of cavalry. Naval uniforms would have been introduced, but I don't think I managed to get the order done.
Guest- Guest
Deacon wrote:
Well, I could be wrong, but I'd bet that paying for custom uniforms for you men does pay off in them having better morale. So jokes about the 'pretty french troops' aside, I do think there is a point to it even if you don't bother with all the fiddly details.
There seem to be a lot of ways to impact the quality of your troops from equipment, to better technology, to training. How they all stack up, only Richard knows for certain!
I think Deacon's got it to a T. Yes, drilling is a benefit but so are custom uniforms. Drilling makes better soldiers I guess but perhaps annoys the soldiers (its hard work)? Whereas new uniforms might be better for morale, they look nicer without having to work...
It is interesting how some players do like to pay attention to such details, it does make for a fuller game. I guess we all have little quirks of play-I, for example, like to develop infrastructure, such as medical and legal services as well as roads. I'm not sure who but there was (is?) a player who likes to create Marine Corps and goes into a lot of detail around their development and organisation, including the oaths they have to swear.
Guest- Guest
And Louis, I do find the level of detail you paid to the uniforms fascinating, it does make the French army seem more 'real' 
Guest- Guest
Thank you Jason.
Previously I had played a number of oddball nations for which historical records were far harder to research. For France, though, there is so much historical information to pick from and so much flexibility as many of the improvements started in France. I went a bit overboard on it, and in another 5 years of playing could easily have doubled the size of the asset list again
You clearly appreciate how the detail in the position snowballed. Provided you keep some structure to the asset list then it isn't too hard to follow it all.
I have posted pictures of other French uniforms on another thread as it does help bring the position alive. I don't know how much tactical detail has been retained, but you should have detail on how each type of infantry unit should fight and how lances/sabres should be used, which breeds/colours of horse apply to which regiments, etc. The tactics and uniforms should work together to produce the advantage.
I actually put more time into sorting out the navy (for France a SoL is worth 5F if properly used), but inexplicably neglected naval uniforms. I planned to introduce naval uniforms once the fleets reached their respective permanent bases which they should have done by now. If Stuart thought some of the army uniforms were outlandish, he'll hate the naval ones!
Previously I had played a number of oddball nations for which historical records were far harder to research. For France, though, there is so much historical information to pick from and so much flexibility as many of the improvements started in France. I went a bit overboard on it, and in another 5 years of playing could easily have doubled the size of the asset list again
You clearly appreciate how the detail in the position snowballed. Provided you keep some structure to the asset list then it isn't too hard to follow it all.
I have posted pictures of other French uniforms on another thread as it does help bring the position alive. I don't know how much tactical detail has been retained, but you should have detail on how each type of infantry unit should fight and how lances/sabres should be used, which breeds/colours of horse apply to which regiments, etc. The tactics and uniforms should work together to produce the advantage.
I actually put more time into sorting out the navy (for France a SoL is worth 5F if properly used), but inexplicably neglected naval uniforms. I planned to introduce naval uniforms once the fleets reached their respective permanent bases which they should have done by now. If Stuart thought some of the army uniforms were outlandish, he'll hate the naval ones!
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
Dear Louis
I will put my money on my hordes
Whilst there might be uncertainty as to who won certain encounters, currently the campaign has been going my way. Needless to say I will have spoken too soon once this or a future turn comes out
I will put my money on my hordes
Whilst there might be uncertainty as to who won certain encounters, currently the campaign has been going my way. Needless to say I will have spoken too soon once this or a future turn comes out
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Basileus wrote:Dear Louis
I will put my money on my hordes
Whilst there might be uncertainty as to who won certain encounters, currently the campaign has been going my way. Needless to say I will have spoken too soon once this or a future turn comes out
"No plan survives contact with the enemy" to paraphrase Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
Guest- Guest
Basileus wrote:Dear Louis -I will put my money on my hordes
Glad to hear it - the campaign has cost you a few million pounds a year in hiring ludicrously expensive mercenaries. Add in the amounts spent by your allies and subsidies/bribes to HRE states, UDP and Williamite rebels and my guess is you're not far short of £4M between you, possibly far more over the 2.5 years. And of course that doesn't include the diplomatic cost of continuing to trumpet your dishonourable cause in the face of mounting internal opposition.
I will be interested to read of your attempts to kill of a chunk of your army so you can avoid paying the upkeep. You may be successful in this, but whether you lose men or money, you have still lost. I have every confidence that the new French player and his ally, King James, will act with honour and intelligence and use the French forces I created to win with style.
I will be interested to read of your attempts to kill of a chunk of your army so you can avoid paying the upkeep. You may be successful in this, but whether you lose men or money, you have still lost. I have every confidence that the new French player and his ally, King James, will act with honour and intelligence and use the French forces I created to win with style.
Guest- Guest
Some kind soul has forwarded a copy of the latest newspaper (April) - a rather quiet turn by recent standards. For the information and entertainment of observers, the following points arise:
The murdered King James has been declared a martyr by the Pope. In the same passage we had the rather interesting statement that Austria is no longer attacking France over England, but apparently has yet to divulge precisely why she is still attacking France rather than simply withdrawing as requested by Rome. This appears to be a major diplomatic blow for Austria, but one which was widely anticipated. The precise quotation is as follows: His Holiness the Pope has expressed the Church’s temporal horror at the martyrdom of the late James of England, but also spiritual joy that he died upholding the true faith of the Church of Christ. He is proclaimed a martyr of Holy Church! Pope Clement has also called for restraint, and while he does not agree with guilt by association and is now not speaking ex-cathedra, expressed his gratitude that the House of Austria has already stated it is no longer making war on France because of England. However, he asks for restraint in that he understands Austria may still be seen as acting in such a manner, and since the Emperor is in breach of a treaty signed with King Louis XIV, as an act of friendship to Rome he calls upon Vienna to withdraw her armies from French soil. Finally, with the authority given to him by Christ he has issued an anathema against the person known as John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, ‘whose sins reach as high as the tower of Babel, and who will finally meet a similar fate for his sin if he does not repent and make good the grievous crime he has committed against humanity and God.’
Meanwhile there is a ludicrously self-serving Spanish peace proposal which requires France to surrender all gains since 1600 to the Hapsburgs (which I imagine includes such provinces as Narbonne), along with Franche-Comte, Ancona, and approximately £4M in dowry due to France by Spain. That Spain acknowledges the dowry is still due means that Spain is standing by the Treaty of Ghent. In return Spain and Austria promise to recognise King James as the lawful King of England. This might seem like a serious concession, but it is rather odd given that Spain recognised King James the month before. This proposal amounts to a very heavy price simply to get Leopold to do something which ultimately he will be forced to do by political pressure from the church and his own nobles inside the HRE. Of course Leopold could continue to fight on in spite of Church opposition, and France's suggestion that there be a ceasefire for peace negotiations is no doubt in response to the Pope's call for restraint, however much Louis must be yearning to fight the Austrians on the battlefield. I am sure nobody will be surprised if I give my own opinion on this 'peace' settlement as one which no King of France could possibly consider signing. There is not even one part of a clause which is equitable. As the Treaty of Ghent still stands, Spain will struggle to intervene on Austria's side without exposing herself to all the consequences of a breach of that treaty including reactivating the Bourbon claim to the crown of Spain.
Back in England, RJC has declared that Parliament should appoint Catholic bishops, demonstrating that he clearly does not understand that only the Pope can appoint Catholic bishops. That the Pope has condemned him so strongly is hardly a surprise. Defoe and Swift have both left London for reasons of honour. RJC has split his forces and is attacking French held strongholds throughout England, demanding that French troops leave in accordance with a treaty he broke. Inconsistent as ever, he is also demanding France returns Jamaica which he had previously agreed was French. I am struggling to understand the logic behind any of his rather contradictory statements, so perhaps he may be feigning madness in order to save his soul.
Until King James and France have had the chance to decide on a future strategy French troops in England are vulnerable as their locations were made known to Churchill as part of the agreement to monitor their withdrawal. In another positive development for RJC, his dredgers have finally cleared the blockage in the Humber, which will give France a major headache unless remedied. Of course should Churchill's fleet put to sea he is likely to lose most of it through storm damage or an encounter with a small French patrol in far better condition. Some compensation I suppose for the losses to French merchants. Churchill has also suffered with the escape of various prisoners from Reading, and from the loss of Peterborough which has declared for King James.
France seems quite reasonably to be allowing time for letters to pass between players and for private diplomacy to replace public posturing. However, the spring campaigning season is now open. In the past Austria and her allies have resolutely refused to call off their pirates, bandits and other low-life friends and stop attacking France to give time for negotiations, unless France withdrew from England. However, unless it was misreported Austria appears to have told the Pope that she is no longer attacking France on behalf of England. Consequently, her previous condition (that France withdrew from England) would appear to be irrelevant and there is no reason whatsoever for Austrian troops to be in France. Previous attempts at negotiation tended to work against France because Austria was determined to push ahead regardless. Delays merely served to allow yet more HRE troops to be massed on the border ready to attack again. I therefore doubt the new player for France will fall for the same tactic being used again.
However, based on this turn, RJC seems to have the upper hand in England. It was clearly a masterstroke allowing London to become ungovernable so he can free up troops to seize other English towns. In that sense at least he has had a much better turn than the previous one.
The murdered King James has been declared a martyr by the Pope. In the same passage we had the rather interesting statement that Austria is no longer attacking France over England, but apparently has yet to divulge precisely why she is still attacking France rather than simply withdrawing as requested by Rome. This appears to be a major diplomatic blow for Austria, but one which was widely anticipated. The precise quotation is as follows: His Holiness the Pope has expressed the Church’s temporal horror at the martyrdom of the late James of England, but also spiritual joy that he died upholding the true faith of the Church of Christ. He is proclaimed a martyr of Holy Church! Pope Clement has also called for restraint, and while he does not agree with guilt by association and is now not speaking ex-cathedra, expressed his gratitude that the House of Austria has already stated it is no longer making war on France because of England. However, he asks for restraint in that he understands Austria may still be seen as acting in such a manner, and since the Emperor is in breach of a treaty signed with King Louis XIV, as an act of friendship to Rome he calls upon Vienna to withdraw her armies from French soil. Finally, with the authority given to him by Christ he has issued an anathema against the person known as John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, ‘whose sins reach as high as the tower of Babel, and who will finally meet a similar fate for his sin if he does not repent and make good the grievous crime he has committed against humanity and God.’
Meanwhile there is a ludicrously self-serving Spanish peace proposal which requires France to surrender all gains since 1600 to the Hapsburgs (which I imagine includes such provinces as Narbonne), along with Franche-Comte, Ancona, and approximately £4M in dowry due to France by Spain. That Spain acknowledges the dowry is still due means that Spain is standing by the Treaty of Ghent. In return Spain and Austria promise to recognise King James as the lawful King of England. This might seem like a serious concession, but it is rather odd given that Spain recognised King James the month before. This proposal amounts to a very heavy price simply to get Leopold to do something which ultimately he will be forced to do by political pressure from the church and his own nobles inside the HRE. Of course Leopold could continue to fight on in spite of Church opposition, and France's suggestion that there be a ceasefire for peace negotiations is no doubt in response to the Pope's call for restraint, however much Louis must be yearning to fight the Austrians on the battlefield. I am sure nobody will be surprised if I give my own opinion on this 'peace' settlement as one which no King of France could possibly consider signing. There is not even one part of a clause which is equitable. As the Treaty of Ghent still stands, Spain will struggle to intervene on Austria's side without exposing herself to all the consequences of a breach of that treaty including reactivating the Bourbon claim to the crown of Spain.
Back in England, RJC has declared that Parliament should appoint Catholic bishops, demonstrating that he clearly does not understand that only the Pope can appoint Catholic bishops. That the Pope has condemned him so strongly is hardly a surprise. Defoe and Swift have both left London for reasons of honour. RJC has split his forces and is attacking French held strongholds throughout England, demanding that French troops leave in accordance with a treaty he broke. Inconsistent as ever, he is also demanding France returns Jamaica which he had previously agreed was French. I am struggling to understand the logic behind any of his rather contradictory statements, so perhaps he may be feigning madness in order to save his soul.
Until King James and France have had the chance to decide on a future strategy French troops in England are vulnerable as their locations were made known to Churchill as part of the agreement to monitor their withdrawal. In another positive development for RJC, his dredgers have finally cleared the blockage in the Humber, which will give France a major headache unless remedied. Of course should Churchill's fleet put to sea he is likely to lose most of it through storm damage or an encounter with a small French patrol in far better condition. Some compensation I suppose for the losses to French merchants. Churchill has also suffered with the escape of various prisoners from Reading, and from the loss of Peterborough which has declared for King James.
France seems quite reasonably to be allowing time for letters to pass between players and for private diplomacy to replace public posturing. However, the spring campaigning season is now open. In the past Austria and her allies have resolutely refused to call off their pirates, bandits and other low-life friends and stop attacking France to give time for negotiations, unless France withdrew from England. However, unless it was misreported Austria appears to have told the Pope that she is no longer attacking France on behalf of England. Consequently, her previous condition (that France withdrew from England) would appear to be irrelevant and there is no reason whatsoever for Austrian troops to be in France. Previous attempts at negotiation tended to work against France because Austria was determined to push ahead regardless. Delays merely served to allow yet more HRE troops to be massed on the border ready to attack again. I therefore doubt the new player for France will fall for the same tactic being used again.
However, based on this turn, RJC seems to have the upper hand in England. It was clearly a masterstroke allowing London to become ungovernable so he can free up troops to seize other English towns. In that sense at least he has had a much better turn than the previous one.
Guest- Guest
A few misinterpretations in there RKL. But thats understandable, as you've based your commentary on the game paper rather than having any access to our orders or turn replies. I'll not spend time correcting them. However, given the nature of this forum and how it is used to goad players, I must make one thing clear. RJC is not attacking France.
Guest- Guest
The Real John Churchill wrote: A few misinterpretations in there RKL. But thats understandable, as you've based your commentary on the game paper rather than having any access to our orders or turn replies. I must make one thing clear: RJC is not attacking France.
As you rightly say I can only base my commentary on the newspaper, and it is a commentary which in this instance pays tribute to your achievements. Unless this has changed, French troops are not mercenaries in the pay of King James, so it seems quite clear to me that if you attack French troops you have attacked France. The published statement from King James also seems to indicate he considers you are attacking France. It is quite possible that I have misinterpreted some subtle cunning plan of yours, or that the newspaper has misreported events - it has happened in the past, but if that is so then you have every right to correct such errors as you see them. Fail to do so then such silence indicates consent. The newspaper is the public record of the game which players rely on irrespective what private comments may be made in your own turn reply.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2606
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 61
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Seems to me that the RJC is trying to fight a civil war with the Jacobites without fighting the French.
But some of his commanders such as Major-General Savage are struggling to work out who is a Jacobite and who is a Frog.
Can not say I blame them when the Duke of Berwick James II son and uncle to James who would be III is "French" and De Trouin is a "Jacobite."
I say lets stop messing about .......after say June 1706 class any Frog on English, Scots or Irish soil as a Jacobite Merc and hang the lot of them.
But some of his commanders such as Major-General Savage are struggling to work out who is a Jacobite and who is a Frog.
Can not say I blame them when the Duke of Berwick James II son and uncle to James who would be III is "French" and De Trouin is a "Jacobite."
I say lets stop messing about .......after say June 1706 class any Frog on English, Scots or Irish soil as a Jacobite Merc and hang the lot of them.
Guest- Guest
The Real Louis of France wrote:The Real John Churchill wrote: A few misinterpretations in there RKL. But thats understandable, as you've based your commentary on the game paper rather than having any access to our orders or turn replies. I must make one thing clear: RJC is not attacking France.As you rightly say I can only base my commentary on the newspaper, and it is a commentary which in this instance pays tribute to your achievements. Unless this has changed, French troops are not mercenaries in the pay of King James, so it seems quite clear to me that if you attack French troops you have attacked France. The published statement from King James also seems to indicate he considers you are attacking France. It is quite possible that I have misinterpreted some subtle cunning plan of yours, or that the newspaper has misreported events - it has happened in the past, but if that is so then you have every right to correct such errors as you see them. Fail to do so then such silence indicates consent. The newspaper is the public record of the game which players rely on irrespective what private comments may be made in your own turn reply.
I say again, RJC is not attacking France.
Failing to correct errors on this forum is not consenting to them. As the player of JC I know what I have ordered. And I have not ordered any attacks on France.
Guest- Guest
Well, your orders must be being disobeyed then?
In Liverpool the newspaper has the following:
The Duke of Somerset's English Marlburian force of seven Swiss foot battalions, nine dragoon squadrons and 14 artillery batteries advanced on Liverpool during stormy weather, but friendly locals informed the duke that Irish troops loyal to the French crown and commanded by the Marquis de Blainville are holding the city. Not convinced that taking Liverpool by storm would be wise, and despite the weather, Somerset had his troops make camp outside the city.
This clearly suggests that your troops had orders to take Liverpool and you were only prevented in doing so by French troops. Note: not French troops acting as Jacobite mercenaries, Stuart, but French troops loyal to France. A similar situation is arising in Warwick and Bristol. The Grand Old Duke of York marched his men up and down hills for no reason, but aside this notable exception I don't think I'm being controversial by stating that troops are usually given orders for a purpose.
If you say you have not ordered attacks on French troops then of course I accept your word about this. However, commanders on the ground do not always obey their orders in situations such as this. If memory serves the American phase of the French-Indian war started at the battle of Jumonville Glen with troops under Washington's command opening fire on French troops, killing the French commander. At the time Britain and France were not officially at war, though they were after this incident!
Saint Thomas More was described as "the person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced," by Jonathan Swift. In his show trial before Henry VIII, More, who as Lord Chancellor knew something of the law of England, reminded the court that by keeping silent the court could not construe disagreement, quite the opposite: the maxim of the law was that silence indicated consent. Should you be brought to trial for your actions, you might find this aspect of English law far to valuable to ignore.
In Liverpool the newspaper has the following:
The Duke of Somerset's English Marlburian force of seven Swiss foot battalions, nine dragoon squadrons and 14 artillery batteries advanced on Liverpool during stormy weather, but friendly locals informed the duke that Irish troops loyal to the French crown and commanded by the Marquis de Blainville are holding the city. Not convinced that taking Liverpool by storm would be wise, and despite the weather, Somerset had his troops make camp outside the city.
This clearly suggests that your troops had orders to take Liverpool and you were only prevented in doing so by French troops. Note: not French troops acting as Jacobite mercenaries, Stuart, but French troops loyal to France. A similar situation is arising in Warwick and Bristol. The Grand Old Duke of York marched his men up and down hills for no reason, but aside this notable exception I don't think I'm being controversial by stating that troops are usually given orders for a purpose.
If you say you have not ordered attacks on French troops then of course I accept your word about this. However, commanders on the ground do not always obey their orders in situations such as this. If memory serves the American phase of the French-Indian war started at the battle of Jumonville Glen with troops under Washington's command opening fire on French troops, killing the French commander. At the time Britain and France were not officially at war, though they were after this incident!
Saint Thomas More was described as "the person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced," by Jonathan Swift. In his show trial before Henry VIII, More, who as Lord Chancellor knew something of the law of England, reminded the court that by keeping silent the court could not construe disagreement, quite the opposite: the maxim of the law was that silence indicated consent. Should you be brought to trial for your actions, you might find this aspect of English law far to valuable to ignore.