Stuart Bailey wrote:When the war in G7 ends (or perhaps when G7 ends) the players should start a new thread on their military reflections and perhaps if Richard ever does another Carte Blanche he can comment.
Somehow I think it could be a long time before G7 ends.
Stuart Bailey wrote:On the subject on the Subject of Spain's pampered, polished and very highly trained Heavy Cavalry Regiments I think in common with many players I have spent large amounts of time and money on the Heavy Cavalry but when actually on campaign they have hardly been used. While the actual campaigning/fighting has been done by Dragoons, Lt Infantry, Engineers and Artillery sometimes helped and protected by the Infantry.
Indeed across two wars in G7 the Spanish Heavy Cavalry have effectively been used in action twice. Partly because in a mirror image of the French Cavalry who have marched like C13 Mongols but have generally been sub standard on the battlefield the Spanish Cavalry seem to fight well but march like a one legged man with a broken crouch. After taking six months to march from Bara to Bilbao on "a" class roads think conclusion was breakfast, lunch followed by siesta, dinner plus time for prayers and two hours grooming per day.
This does surprise me. Perhaps the vets insisted that your heavy cavalry could only march a few miles each day or your regulations provided for horse welfare to be above the need to move. I guess on the battlefield, though, you would not have felt comfortable leaving them at home. From what I have read, French heavy cavalry was the best in the period so it should be possible for other nations to copy them. And since you have invested so much in trying to do so even to the point of making them all elite, it seems a bit odd that they can fight well, but just not march well.
Stuart Bailey wrote:English cavalry are a real problem troop type for many rules sets since individual squadrons were very good but they were often very poor at mass unit tactics and things like scouting. Also English Cavalry regiments were very much owned by their generally aristocratic Colonels which lead to a less than standard approach to mounts, uniforms and regimental names.
So you end up with the unit names and equipment being all over the place such as the unit which at different times were called the Tangier Horse, Royal Regiment of Dragoons and even the Tangier Cuirassiers without any real changes being made.
So while the French, Prussian and Austrian armies had regulations and remount services which at least in peace time meant the largest horses and recruits went to the Cuirassier, smaller and brighter men to the Hussars, etc in the English each regiment did its own thing and under it was not unknown for a English Dragoon Regiment esp if it had been stationed in Ireland and had a rich Colonel who was proud of his unit to show up mounted on huge Irish hunters and the like which would have found a place in the Elite Heavy Cavalry of almost all European armies. And English Dragoon units which were perfectly happy to go toe to toe with the Maison du Roi.
Think one solution for anyone running England would be to class Yeoman and Provincial units as Dragoons - basically bunch of local Tory's and their tenants handy for keeping the levellers and Jacobites under control and good shots due to all the hunting. While Regular Army units like the 2nd Dragoon Guards AKA - Queens Bays and the the Earl of Peterborough Regiment of Horse should be classed as Horse or what I would class them as - Elite Dragoons (perhaps with title of Dragoon Guards).
Certainly these units were among the best equipped, best trained and best paid units in Europe and can not really be compared to Peter the Greats Dragoons who had cannon and basic drill was to get off horse and form square.
The first time I tried to remodel English armies I found exactly this problem. The infantry was relatively easy - I could give each a number and historical names which roughly corresponded to regimental histories. I didn't do the same with artillery but just kept them altogether for flexibility.
Dragoons were also straight forward to number, but some units I kept outside the numbering system just because I quite liked what previous players had done to them. I had so many dragoons that I really wasn't bothered about them - almost expected to lose them over the course of the war so would have reorganised them into fewer regiments. I did think about reclassifying some of them as Yeomanry or local hunt units, even going as far as nominating commanders who were masters of hounds, but didn't get round to putting the order into effect. I thought such local units might have an advantage in ambushing an enemy army as it marched through.
But with ordinary horse, I really struggled for the reasons you suggest, Stuart. In this first attempt I decided on a maximum of 10H regiments which corresponded to the historical names as they were in 1700. Nearly all of these were wiped out to attrition at Hastings despite never fighting! So I then had to start again. Instead of Horse, I would have Dragoon Guards (again, trying to be historic) - raised larger numbers, drilled them to a basic level (yes it did happen), then sent them by sea to Scotland where they were captured at sea; these units were subsequently marched across Scotland as PoW by the Dutch and died in the thousands. So it appears that it doesn't matter how well drilled they are or even if they are under my command, English horse simply die to attrition.
And so I tried a 3rd time, making the assumption that I have to do both in order to be left with some horse after a battle - existing horse were reorganised into Household units (simply surviving seemed to be in itself proof that they deserved to exist), new Dragoon Guards units have been raised (which were at Oxford and largely survived the trip back to London). These are the only English horse which have not died simply by looking at a blade of grass. Perhaps I should try to invent blinkers so they avoid that temptation.
Of course since the Dragoon Guards have not died, it does bring me the difficulty if I try to re-raise the original 10H regiments again (with historical names) in January because this is what happens to the names:
1st (The Queen's) Regiment of Horse (1685) became 1st King's Dragoon Guards
2nd (Earl of Peterborough's) Regiment of Horse (1682) became 2nd Dragoon Guards (Queen's Bays)
3rd (Earl of Plymouth's) Regiment of Horse (1685) became 3rd (Prince of Wales') Dragoon Guards
4th (Earl of Arran's Cuirassiers) Regiment of Horse (1685) became 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards
5th (Duke of Shrewsbury's) Regiment of Horse (1685) became 5th Regiment of Dragoon Guards
6th The King's Carabiniers (1685) became 6th Regiment of Dragoon Guards (The Carabiniers)
7th The Black Horse (1688) became 7th Regiment of Dragoon Guards (The Black Horse)
8th, 9th, 10th were all raised 1699 and didn't last long either before they were disbanded!
So I suppose historically England only had 7 regiments of proper Horse.
The historic names also don't make much sense any more in the context of changes within G7:
(1) The norm is for the first of any troop type to be "the King's", not "the Queen's", so this would probably need renaming.
(2) The Earl of Peterborough is still around and is loyal, though getting a bit old for active command.
(3) The Earl of Plymouth (in 1685) was a Williamite, but his son was a Jacobite so I could let that name stand.
(4) The Earl of Arran's Cuirassiers was never commanded by him, but by traitors who went over to William.
(5) The Duke of Shrewsbury was a Williamite who died in 1718.
(6) The King's Carabiniers started off as the Earl of Scarborough's horse until he went over to William who repaid him by demoting the unit to 8th horse.
(7) The Black Horse was raised by the future (and in game current) Duke of Devonshire as an escort for Princess Anne (of Denmark) - in game the Duke is a Jacobite who enjoys teasing Spaniards. He is so good at it that I am seriously considering making him Master of Revels. Quite why he would then need a regiment of horse is a mystery.
So if we apply the principle that regiments who desert or otherwise shame the King are disbanded, I would be left with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th Horse.
I remain to be convinced that it would be a good use of game time to try and re-raise historic regiments with so many gaps whilst still being true to how game loyalties have developed. After all, the point of building regiments is to more closely bind the men to regimental history; when that history is one of treachery to the King, it may be inviting trouble to remind them of it. I actually have a similar dilemma with some of the infantry, e.g. 26th Foot "The Cameronians", raised from Scottish Presbyterians (the regimental regulations require that the chaplain be a Presbyterian) - expecting them to fight for Catholic King James is probably pushing it so I have not yet raised them. For those who are interested in fictional coincidences, the historic colonel at the time was John Blackadder, a Calvinist, who seems to have run a highly effective regiment - pity their loyalties were to William. I suppose I could change the articles of the regiment and make them a Catholic only regiment, but somehow it wouldn't seem right still referring to them as "The Cameronians".