Agema Publications

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


4 posters

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:30 pm

    I have a couple of questions for more experienced wargamers:

    1. I have a few trained vets, but what to do with them. Should I allocate them to looking after farm animals or raise some mobile vet clinics? The clinics would use 100 recruits each, cost £60,000 to raise and £8,000 upkeep so they are expensive in terms of cash, but reasonable in terms of recruits. The rules suggest that they should reduce casualties in armies, but has anyone found them to be effective, in which case how many should be raised? High casualties from attrition (especially with horses) is a pain because H take 6 months to raise and another 12 to drill, so if a few vets are going to help reduce casualties from attrition then it could be worth trying.

    2. I also have a few trained miners. This is a more complicated question. I did think I could use them to raise engineers as ordinary F rather than elite F, but I might have trained them in the wrong academy. Engineers do tend to do the digging in sieges, so I thought specialist miners might work for that. The alternative would be to raise a sappers/miners company which is 150 recruits each, cost £7,500 with £5,000 upkeep. Question is whether the specialist sappers/miners company is more effective than an infantry unit raised from trained miners, and whether that is any better than using engineers (ordinary F or elite) to dig. Logically 700 men would dig a lot faster and more efficiently than 150 men, so the sappers/miners company must have a significant advantage. And how many sappers/miners companies would be able to do the work of engineers?
    avatar
    Stuart Bailey
    Emperor of Europe
    Emperor of Europe


    Number of posts : 2556
    Age : 60
    Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
    Reputation : 58
    Registration date : 2012-01-29

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Stuart Bailey Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:43 pm

    Papa Clement wrote:I have a couple of questions for more experienced wargamers:

    1. I have a few trained vets, but what to do with them.  Should I allocate them to looking after farm animals or raise some mobile vet clinics?  The clinics would use 100 recruits each, cost £60,000 to raise and £8,000 upkeep so they are expensive in terms of cash, but reasonable in terms of recruits.  The rules suggest that they should reduce casualties in armies, but has anyone found them to be effective, in which case how many should be raised?  High casualties from attrition (especially with horses) is a pain because H take 6 months to raise and another 12 to drill, so if a few vets are going to help reduce casualties from attrition then it could be worth trying.

    2. I also have a few trained miners.  This is a more complicated question.  I did think I could use them to raise engineers as ordinary F rather than elite F, but I might have trained them in the wrong academy.  Engineers do tend to do the digging in sieges, so I thought specialist miners might work for that.  The alternative would be to raise a sappers/miners company which is 150 recruits each, cost £7,500 with £5,000 upkeep.  Question is whether the specialist sappers/miners company is more effective than an infantry unit raised from trained miners, and whether that is any better than using engineers (ordinary F or elite) to dig.  Logically 700 men would dig a lot faster and more efficiently than 150 men, so the sappers/miners company must have a significant advantage.  And how many sappers/miners companies would be able to do the work of engineers?

    1. Think Vets are a bit like Medics in that its hard to say what would have happened if they were not in place. My guess is that if you are country big on livestock farming like Hungary or Scotland esp if you have a low population its probably cost effective to have enough vets to provide a reasonable level of cover. States like Venice and the UDP which are more into trade probably have better uses for their recruits and cash at least in early years.

    The other possibilty is that many of your Nobles probably love their prize hunters more than their kids so if you show care and interest in looking after them they may (?) think a bit more of you and your honour may be helped.

    2 Ref care of Military horses if you are a pure accountant its probably more cost effective to spend the money on having spare re-mounts and throw broken down horses into the cooking pot. This is ok with Turkoman Light Cavalry and Cossacks but for some reason many Cavalry Units do not like this type of treatment of their favourite mounts.

    So if I have some spare cash/recruits I tend to raise some back up vet/medic units not because of any seeming effect on results but because I think it should help morale. Bit like many players attach add a Priest and/or a Surgeon to a Lineship working on the basis that if it happened historically there was probably a reason for it.

    I also suspect that value of Vets/Medics vary with the type of campaign you are fighting. If you get involved in a mass cavalry battle spread over a large area with large numbers of losses in a short space of time do not think Vets/medics are going to do much to keep your losses down. I suspect they are of most value in sieges (both to attackers & defenders) and to really badly smashed up units at such high sickness levels that they were in period known as "taking the cure" and liable to suffer further losses each month they are at high levels.

    3 Ref Miners/Sappers v Engineers - Miners/sappers are specialists are dugging esp mines and blowing people up. Engineer battalions can also do this but they can also do a lot more such as build field works, build shelters, direct siege works, etc, etc. Engineer battalions in game also take a lot less time to raise and are more cost effective but do burn up a lot more recruits. So essentually it comes down to how many Recruits/cash/time.

    If you want to fight a really complex siege with water manovers and large armies such as Antwerp in G7 you need full Engineer units. If all you want to do is garrison a small colonial outpost with a couple of battalions of foot adding a full battalion of engineers who may never see action seems a waste a large numbers of recruits. But adding a squad of 150 miners can really spoil a a small siege with a defensive mine which blows a siege battery position to bits esp if the attacker has not brought spare siege guns and you can reinforce a lot more locations with same number of recruits.

    As a rule of thumb I think Major Field Army (Siege Trayne) should have one or two battalions of Engineers & so should key defensive positions. Think Capitals and places like Milan, Genoa or Brussels in G10. While small garrisons or attacks on small targets not worth a full elite battalion of engineers will be greatly helped by a Sappers and Miners company.

    I should probably add that this is mostly advise for the cash rich but recruit poor who are not in any great rush since to raise such a company takes 12 months in an Academy (additional cost £1500) then another 3 months & £7500 to raise unit.

    Basically the Bailey theory is that Engineers are staple Army units who you can not do without. Miners/Sappers can fill in this roll for small positions but esp for positions with more money than recruits and a lot of possible targets to help defend then comanies are worth a look.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:28 am

    Thanks Stuart.

    I have both vets and miners already trained so the main cost has already happened, really just a case of using them most effectively. If I just assigned them to either general support or in trade investments then they are effectively lost, so I was trying to think creatively before I did that.

    With vets I did wonder about trying to concentrate them on certain activities or in certain areas. As you know I am trying to treat each of the constituent parts of England separately, so based on population I have roughly the following breakdown: Scotland (1M), Wales (1M), Ireland (3M), England (4M). So I could assign 1,000 vets to Scotland to concentrate on cattle and achieve a reasonable cover in Scotland. Same for Wales to concentrate on sheep. England and Ireland are a bit more complicated, but within a relatively short period of time I should be able to do something.

    My query on the mobile vet units was because of problems with the horses. As you know I haven't had a great deal of luck with horses. A previous player didn't do things by halves and raised plenty of Dragoons (100 at a time), so I have lots of them and throughout the whole war they have proved very effective - I've hardly lost any at all. But when it comes to normal Horse I've had problems: Dragoons at SL3 no problem, but Horse at SL3 are lost to attrition. This makes them almost useless - march to a battle, SL2, wait for a turn SL3, then are lost to attrition before they even fight. Total waste of money. The other really odd thing is that if they do make it into combat their performance is OK: at 2nd Dumbarton a mixture of H and D held off crack Dutch H and F. Of course after the battle most of the H were lost to attrition moving down the hill into the town, whilst the dragoons were able to undergo a forced march across the other side of Scotland covering 150 miles in a month without losing any! You've fought on the same terrain at the same time and I would imagine you didn't suffer anything like those losses, so what is up with my horse?

    I had several ideas why, including:
    1. Spy action - doesn't seem probable given how widespread it was over different formations at different times.
    2. Lack of training - part of the problem with being continually at war is that you don't get time to drill, but it happened to undrilled and excellently drilled so it can't be that.
    3. Hidden character traits among my officers - again, if it had happened just once or just under one commander then that would have made sense, but it didn't.
    4. Lack of supply - during the initial campaign this might have been a factor, but not subsequently.
    5. Disease - why should it affect H, but not D in the same army?
    6. Lack of vets - still doesn't explain why H are affected, but not D.
    7. Quality - such a long period of war could have progressively weakened the quality of breeding stock?

    My conclusion (unless anyone has any other ideas) is that it could be 6 or 7. So since I have the vets at hand, I thought it might make sense to eliminate 6 by raising a few mobile vet clinics.

    I'm not normally a fan of remounts as surely that takes more supplies and in any case if horses are being lost to attrition then wouldn't that also apply to the remounts?


    With Engineers/miners-sappers, I can appreciate that engineers are more flexible. I don't understand why 700 men (even if raised as elite) cost £12K upkeep whereas 150 men cost £5K upkeep. The sappers/miners unit is about a fifth of the size so to have 750 sappers/miners is £25K upkeep to do the work of a single engineer unit. To justify that there must be something special which they add and I'm just not seeing it - digging is digging. If it was the other way around then perhaps it would make more sense: specialist engineering companies of 150 men supervising trained miners/sappers unit of 700 men.

    Using them defensively is a good idea, though you would need to be rather lucky to have them in a town which just happens to be under siege. Perhaps you are right in that they are really a small unit to help those with low numbers of recruits, rather than a substitute for engineers?

    If I didn't have them already trained then I probably wouldn't be thinking about raising some, but since I have the opportunity, perhaps I should.

    avatar
    Stuart Bailey
    Emperor of Europe
    Emperor of Europe


    Number of posts : 2556
    Age : 60
    Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
    Reputation : 58
    Registration date : 2012-01-29

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Stuart Bailey Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:28 am

    In one version of rules it showed population of British Isles in 1700 as split 30% Ireland 10% Scotland and 60% England/Wales. Personally while Ireland is pre 1840's famines I thought it was a bit high since Ireland had suffered terrible lose of life in the civil wars of the C17 with many more fleeing the country. But perhaps 30% is more accurate as a percentage of recruits than a percentage of total population.

    Esp with large populations I like to split things up so if you can not manage the whole task at least get part of it done (helps my morale if no one else's) and it seems more historic and natural for things like Schools and Vets etc to grow in an organic fashion than suddenly appear fully formed. In G7 Spain the concept of universal education seems to have started in the Urban area's of Flanders while most of the medicial stuff seems to with come out of Italy.

    I know that historically Russian Dragoons were famously tough and in many armies the Dragoons were tough professional troops on hardy nags able to survive on rough fodder while the Noble and socially elite Horse troopers could be get really funny about a bit of rain and their well breed mounts sicken unless their nose bags are kept full of best qaulity oats. But I have never noticed a difference in game sickness levels apart from when my horse archers were just skirmishing from range while the Lancers got stuck in.

    I can think of two possible reasons why your English Horse have suffered worse than Dragoons: 1) Suspect that like Russian problems at sea if English Horse do worse than English Dragoons its because the English Cavalry in 1700 were basically all Dragoons plus the socially Elite Horsehold Cavalry and the game tends to favour historic options. Oddly English Dragoons in 1700 would have been classed as horse in any other army being well passed the mounted Infantry stage and better mounted and paid than most of the continents Cavalry. The only real reason for why they were called Dragoons was if Horseguards had changed the name it would have had to pay them more.
    2) Did you forgot to feed them? Possible that if rules are based on armies which differ from the English mean than horse suffer worse Dragoons if you of supply since well mounted Horse units need good quality oats while Dragoons are the armies foragers.

    Do not like remounts! Wash your mouth out with soap..........Ottoman or Hussar raiders need spare horses to carry supplies and loot plus give horses a rest from having to carry weight of rider. If you are to play Austria in G8 its not all about attending the Opera in Vienna and hobnobbing with German Electors some times you may have to get down and dirty Wild East Style.

    Ref cost of small mine companies & engineers......most of a units cost was down to cost of commanding Officiers plus I think Richard tends to increase cost of new and "fancy" units. Basically as an original and basic unit Engineers are much better value unless your are really recruit poor. Or just love mines.......think of the confusion if you had mines blown under the north, south, east and west walls all at the same time.

    Ref defensive use of mines and the like I agree that players can be very unsporting in not attacking carefully prepared positions you have taken a long time over.....how rude! In G2 Belgrade was in my opinion a defensive masterwork but the blasted Austrians never even attempted to advance down the Danube while in G7 a certain player had a wacking great fleet outside Cadiz but never landed any land forces. I am also still baffled that the Dutch abandoned my reinforced fortified lines and the concept of a shaped battlefield round Glasgow without a shot fired.

    Ref your shaped battlefield at 2nd Dunbarton still think that having a flank hanging open and just counting on the Cavalry to cover it could be high risk against say Ottoman Lancers or the Winged Hussars in Eastern Europe.



    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:02 am

    Stuart Bailey wrote:In one version of rules it showed population of British Isles in 1700 as split 30% Ireland 10% Scotland and 60% England/Wales. Personally while Ireland is pre 1840's famines I thought it was a bit high since Ireland had suffered terrible lose of life in the civil wars of the C17 with many more fleeing the country. But perhaps 30% is more accurate as a percentage of recruits than a percentage of total population.

    Esp with large populations I like to split things up so if you can not manage the whole task at least get part of it done (helps my morale if no one else's) and it seems more historic and natural for things like Schools and Vets etc to grow in an organic fashion than suddenly appear fully formed. In G7 Spain the concept of universal education seems to have started in the Urban area's of Flanders while most of the medicial stuff seems to with come out of Italy.

    That is how I am approaching the population split. It may be a bit on the high side for Ireland, but perhaps in G7 it is about right since Ireland and Wales are the only areas which were not significantly affected by the war. Scotland saw some fairly heavy action as you know whereas England had raids in the north, midlands and south. Part of the idea of thinking of the territories as different countries was precisely to try and complete a level of schools/doctors etc in a particular country first rather than trying to do everything at once. I could, for example, even whilst fighting the war spare 1,000 recruits to do doctors in Scotland whereas 9,000 recruits to do doctors everywhere would have been a bit more of a strain.

    Stuart Bailey wrote:I know that historically Russian Dragoons were famously tough and in many armies the Dragoons were tough professional troops on hardy nags able to survive on rough fodder while the Noble and socially elite Horse troopers could be get really funny about a bit of rain and their well bred mounts sicken unless their nose bags are kept full of best quality oats. But I have never noticed a difference in game sickness levels apart from when my horse archers were just skirmishing from range while the Lancers got stuck in.

    I can think of two possible reasons why your English Horse have suffered worse than Dragoons:
    1) Suspect that like Russian problems at sea if English Horse do worse than English Dragoons its because the English Cavalry in 1700 were basically all Dragoons plus the socially Elite Household Cavalry and the game tends to favour historic options. Oddly English Dragoons in 1700 would have been classed as horse in any other army being well passed the mounted Infantry stage and better mounted and paid than most of the continents Cavalry. The only real reason for why they were called Dragoons was if Horseguards had changed the name it would have had to pay them more.
    2) Did you forgot to feed them? Possible that if rules are based on armies which differ from the English mean than horse suffer worse Dragoons if you of supply since well mounted Horse units need good quality oats while Dragoons are the armies foragers.

    When I was researching unit names/numbers and trying to be historic I did find the same - English cavalry was nearly all classed as dragoons, but they weren't really dragoons in the game sense of mounted infantry/cheap cavalry. I might have got it wrong in being determined to field proper horse, but the game rules are quite clear that dragoons do not perform as well against horse, and I'm sure you will admit that you spared no expense to make Spanish cavalry very tough to beat! When you are in a war it makes sense to build a force which is given the best chance of defeating the enemy, so I really would have been asking for trouble if I fielded undrilled dragoons against elite Spanish cuirassiers on heavy mounts with excellent horse obedience (supported by remounts and vets).

    Did I forget to feed them? Only once did they go out of supply and it didn't make any difference. The rest of the time the supply situation was quite good (you may have remembered I did quite a bit of research into this even down to the number of bushels of fodder and amount of salt required). I didn't specify that my H would need a higher oats ration than D, but how much detail am I expected to go into? Surely supply x army from y granary should be sufficient? Besides, my orders are usually long winded and complicated enough without adding more to Richard's burden. I might have forgotten much of what I once knew about horses, but I do remember that if you feed a horse too many oats it becomes somewhat lively and harder to control so maintaining a disciplined formation would become impossible.

    I could understand supply difficulties more if it happened outside my home area, but since I was defending my own territory, supply should not have been a problem. So perhaps you are right that there is a hidden modifier which makes English horse (rather than dragoons) particularly vulnerable, with another hidden modifier which makes English ships less vulnerable for balance. Don't know. Of course it still doesn't solve the problem - why are my horse hit by attrition losses whereas the dragoons are not, and what can I do about it? Specifically, would mobile vet units help and if so, in what ratio?


    Stuart Bailey wrote:Do not like remounts! Wash your mouth out with soap..........Ottoman or Hussar raiders need spare horses to carry supplies and loot plus give horses a rest from having to carry weight of rider. If you are to play Austria in G8 its not all about attending the Opera in Vienna and hobnobbing with German Electors some times you may have to get down and dirty Wild East Style.

    OK, I can appreciate that remounts are useful - the point I was making is that if I can't stop horses from dying, then adding more horses (remounts) is surely going to put more strain on supplies and lead to more casualties? I was thinking that there could be a limit to the number of horses available in a country to raise units from.

    Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref cost of small mine companies & engineers......most of a units cost was down to cost of commanding Officers plus I think Richard tends to increase cost of new and "fancy" units. Basically as an original and basic unit Engineers are much better value unless your are really recruit poor. Or just love mines.......think of the confusion if you had mines blown under the north, south, east and west walls all at the same time.

    Ref defensive use of mines and the like I agree that players can be very unsporting in not attacking carefully prepared positions you have taken a long time over.....how rude! In G2 Belgrade was in my opinion a defensive masterwork but the blasted Austrians never even attempted to advance down the Danube while in G7 a certain player had a wacking great fleet outside Cadiz but never landed any land forces. I am also still baffled that the Dutch abandoned my reinforced fortified lines and the concept of a shaped battlefield round Glasgow without a shot fired.

    Thanks - I can certainly agree that fancy units cost more, just didn't think that digging was particular fancy. Couldn't one engineer unit set mines under all 4 walls at once anyway?

    It was only a small fleet outside Cadiz - actually far too many ships. When you did come out only the smallest part of that fleet engaged you and was sufficient to drive you back. I did have a plan for a marine raid, but it didn't seem necessary in the end. Surprised you thought I was going to try and capture Cadiz ... with what given the shortage of troops I had in England/Scotland at the time? Yes I would have captured most of your fleet, but you would surely have reinforced the garrison very quickly if I had launched a serious attack and with your long range artillery I would have lost a lot of men for nothing.

    I'm baffled by the Dutch full stop. I don't even know why they sent troops to Scotland - well perhaps I do ... if you have been given £8M in Spanish money, thousands of Spanish troops and 30,000 Austrian recruits to fight the war with, you may as well play with them. After all, what have you got to lose? But strategically it would have surely made more sense to wait until UDP was invaded and then defend vigorously. Splitting his capacity like that and then trying to hold Scotland with so few troops was always doomed to failure, then weakening what he had by trying to invade England as well was just stupid. I should thank you, though, for defending Glasgow so well - I would never have thought of that particular set up, and at least now you know how hard it is going to be to take it should you try again. As to why they abandoned Glasgow, that should be obvious enough: as more Jacobite/French troops piled into Scotland the enemy had to consolidate. They were already over-extended and couldn't hold both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Their artillery and supplies were in Edinburgh with supply route back through Dunbar/Berwick to UDP, so it would have been daft to risk a slow artillery column being captured en route to Glasgow (which it would have been) and cutting off their supply route which meant they had to either run for the sea (Glasgow to Ayr) or head for Edinburgh. After 2nd Dumbarton it seemed clear that they would head for Edinburgh. Your fancy defences in Glasgow still require men behind them, so when a small French force showed up they were able to occupy Glasgow very easily.

    Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref your shaped battlefield at 2nd Dumbarton still think that having a flank hanging open and just counting on the Cavalry to cover it could be high risk against say Ottoman Lancers or the Winged Hussars in Eastern Europe.

    I don't pretend to be much of a wargamer and armies aren't really my thing so of course if you were in command against me you would have exploited any weakness in the setup. There was more to it than that, though, and 2nd Dumbarton was the battle which turned the war in Scotland. The risk was all on the Dutch side: my priority was to eliminate the long range Spanish artillery (which should not have been on the field at all, but safely back in Spain under the Treaty of Scotland), and this objective was achieved. Better than that, I was able to use the terrain to beat off elite and undefeated Dutch infantry and render their cavalry useless for the rest of the campaigning season. And of course, forced their withdrawal from Dumbarton. Had UDP won the battle then they would probably not have thought of withdrawing from Glasgow. It was one of those battles which had to be fought and I prepared for it as best I could. The surprise perhaps is that the Dutch fought at all. It could have gone even better had the French not been late arriving from the west of Dumbarton, for then they could have caught them in the rear whilst they were engaging me and I might have been able to capture that Spanish long range artillery for myself. I can't say what I would have done if I was Dutch because I wouldn't have been in Scotland at all. If they had stayed in Dumbarton they had the numbers to beat the French, and given my horse would have disappeared from attrition without fighting, I would not have been strong enough to attack Dumbarton on my own. My conclusion is that the Dutch made a(nother) mistake and let their desire for what they assumed would be a quick victory over my inadequate forces prop up support for the war back home at a time when they were under severe pressure from my blockade.
    Marshal Bombast
    Marshal Bombast
    Duke
    Duke


    Number of posts : 360
    Age : 51
    Location : Essex, UK
    Reputation : 8
    Registration date : 2009-01-23

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Marshal Bombast Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:20 pm

    Just noticed the main rule book on page 17 talks about mounted engineers (elite squadron). Should help them keep up.

    Am on call and stuck at home this weekend so trying to get a head start on next turn - not that you should read anything into the above Smile
    avatar
    Stuart Bailey
    Emperor of Europe
    Emperor of Europe


    Number of posts : 2556
    Age : 60
    Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
    Reputation : 58
    Registration date : 2012-01-29

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Stuart Bailey Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:40 pm

    When the war in G7 ends (or perhaps when G7 ends) the players should starty a new thread on their military reflections and perhaps if Richard ever does another Carte Blanche he can comment.

    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 Mongels 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.

    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 approch 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 ment 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 Masion 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 tennants 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 amongst the best equiped, 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.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:26 am

    Marshal Bombast wrote:Just noticed the main rule book on page 17 talks about mounted engineers (elite squadron). Should help them keep up.

    Thanks Marshal ... not quite sure who you play in games, but I'm not entirely convinced that mounted engineers will help solve either problem. I guess with all their heavy equipment their horses would be lost to attrition even more quickly?

    Have probably reached the conclusion that I will raise a few units of each and see if they have a positive impact. Or ask Richard for a special Naval engineering unit - slightly out of period since they didn't exist until steamships. Perhaps I could raise engineering companies to add to marine regiments instead, that could be more in period and the unit size would make more sense.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:32 am

    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".





    avatar
    Stuart Bailey
    Emperor of Europe
    Emperor of Europe


    Number of posts : 2556
    Age : 60
    Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
    Reputation : 58
    Registration date : 2012-01-29

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Stuart Bailey Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:29 pm

    Feel I should point out that I have never been a fan of making all of a force elite or crack and esp not the Spanish Cavalry! Might consider making the frigate crews of the privateering branch of the French Navy crack as clearly we are superior sailors to the rest of the French Navy and most other Navies as well due to the amount of sea time we get in.

    Spain, Naples and Milan have elite Regiments which are socially elite like the Spanish Household Cavalry, The Naples Royal Guard and the Queen Own Carbineers in Naples. Basically these are Guard Units and provide a way of keeping young nobles out of taverns and houses of ill repute.

    Had not raised a Ducal Guard Horse Regiment in Flanders when 30 odd Squadrons of Spanish Horse charged head long into 70 odd Squadrons of French Lancers and cut them to bits in a dazzling display of swordsmanship (rolled double six?) before rallying to threaten another charge which kept French foot pinned in position being blasted by Spanish Artillery. After which it seemed only fair to reformed the Order of the Golden Fleece and give the Knights of Burgundy a pay rise. Which gives the Spanish 3rd Army (Army of Flanders) a higher than normal percentage of Elite Cavalry.

    The Spanish Dragoon Regiment which captured Toulon by coup de main also ended up in the Household Cavalry which also seemed reasonable. Basically I tend to build a Army/Navy with very broad brush stokes and see how things develop.......have never bothered to name every ship in a fleet but I may name the odd flagship or regiment if events throw something up.

    Ref your comment about the French Cavalry being the best in the period and people should copy them.........exactly which period are you talking about? The earlier period under Conde and up to and including the League of Augsburg was a high point for French Cavalry. They also had other High Points later in the Century under De Saxe (and another at the very end of the century/start of the C19). But in periods in between inc the WSS period they had some real low points.

    Not only was the French Cavalry in the WSS outfought by the Allied Cavalry in all the major battles in the North .......with the French Commander at Blenheim list of reasons for the defeat including the rout of 8 Squadrons of the vaunted French Gendarmerie by a mere 5 English Squadrons (inc Squadrons from the 7th & 3rd Dragoon Guards) but you also had events like the dyke top fight at Eckeren in 1703 were 1500 French Cavalry were routed and chased for a mile by a single troop of Dutch Cavalry while Tallards Army managed to lose a third of its horses to Glanders making the march from Strasbourg to Augsburg.

    At its best French Cavalry seems to have relied on mass and daring and imaginative leadership and its horsemanship and weapon handling skills ware always second rate compared to the late Prussian Cavalry, Austrian and Polish Horse and on an individual level Ottoman Cavalry.

    Being very Specific about dates in 1700 the best Cavalry by far is the Swedish Horse who from 1700 to 1709, when the remnants of the Swedish Army ruined by exposure were finally defeated by overwhelming numbers, massed artillery and earthern redoubts, savaged Danes (who provided some of Marlboroughs very best Cavalry), Saxons, Poles and Russians.

    Unable to match such standards (think it helps if you are half nuts to play a Swede correctly) Spanish Cavalry in G7 is just doing its best to be more Austrian than the Austrians.......pity about the lack of Hussars, but we do a very nice line in Spanish Riding Schools and my horses are much better breed and a lot prettier than poor French Nags who get shoved into barges and drowned in siege lines.

    My current theory for slow speed of Spanish Cavalry and why James Stuarts Horse keep vanishing is that the Spanish Cavalry are horse lovers who do not want rhem getting a hot with sore hoofs. While English Horse are mostly leaad by voters just do not like James Stuart very much and are likely to bugger off home at the first bad news or bit of rain........well its a theory which does seem to meet the facts.
    J Flower
    J Flower
    Emperor
    Emperor


    Number of posts : 1239
    Age : 53
    Location : Paderborn, Germany
    Reputation : 17
    Registration date : 2012-02-16

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by J Flower Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:00 am



    "My current theory for slow speed of Spanish Cavalry and why James Stuarts Horse keep vanishing is that the Spanish Cavalry are horse lovers who do not want rhem getting a hot with sore hoofs.  While English Horse are mostly leaad by voters just do not like James Stuart very much and are likely to bugger off home at the first bad news or bit of rain........well its a theory which does seem to meet the facts."

    In the Prussian army Horse "Lovers" end up getting demoted to the Infantry.
    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:45 am

    Stuart Bailey wrote:Feel I should point out that I have never been a fan of making all of a force elite or crack and esp not the Spanish Cavalry! Might consider making the frigate crews of the privateering branch of the French Navy crack as clearly we are superior sailors to the rest of the French Navy and most other Navies as well due to the amount of sea time we get in.

    Spain, Naples and Milan have elite Regiments which are socially elite like the Spanish Household Cavalry, The Naples Royal Guard and the Queen Own Carbineers in Naples. Basically these are Guard Units and provide a way of keeping young nobles out of taverns and houses of ill repute.

    Had not raised a Ducal Guard Horse Regiment in Flanders when 30 odd Squadrons of Spanish Horse charged head long into 70 odd Squadrons of French Lancers and cut them to bits in a dazzling display of swordsmanship (rolled double six?) before rallying to threaten another charge which kept French foot pinned in position being blasted by Spanish Artillery. After which it seemed only fair to reformed the Order of the Golden Fleece and give the Knights of Burgundy a pay rise. Which gives the Spanish 3rd Army (Army of Flanders) a higher than normal percentage of Elite Cavalry.

    The Spanish Dragoon Regiment which captured Toulon by coup de main also ended up in the Household Cavalry which also seemed reasonable. Basically I tend to build a Army/Navy with very broad brush stokes and see how things develop.......have never bothered to name every ship in a fleet but I may name the odd flagship or regiment if events throw something up.

    Whenever I read about Spanish cavalry in the newspaper they tend to be described as 'elite' or 'crack' or 'guard' so if I have misunderstood the term then thanks for letting me know. I think we are in agreement that Spanish cavalry on the field perform much better than English horse, and probably share the idea that units which perform well deserve special status.

    Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref your comment about the French Cavalry being the best in the period and people should copy them.........exactly which period are you talking about? The earlier period under Conde and up to and including the League of Augsburg was a high point for French Cavalry. They also had other High Points later in the Century under De Saxe (and another at the very end of the century/start of the C19). But in periods in between inc the WSS period they had some real low points.

    Not only was the French Cavalry in the WSS outfought by the Allied Cavalry in all the major battles in the North .......with the French Commander at Blenheim list of reasons for the defeat including the rout of 8 Squadrons of the vaunted French Gendarmerie by a mere 5 English Squadrons (inc Squadrons from the 7th & 3rd Dragoon Guards) but you also had events like the dyke top fight at Eckeren in 1703 were 1500 French Cavalry were routed and chased for a mile by a single troop of Dutch Cavalry while Tallards Army managed to lose a third of its horses to Glanders making the march from Strasbourg to Augsburg.

    At its best French Cavalry seems to have relied on mass and daring and imaginative leadership and its horsemanship and weapon handling skills ware always second rate compared to the late Prussian Cavalry, Austrian and Polish Horse and on an individual level Ottoman Cavalry.

    Being very Specific about dates in 1700 the best Cavalry by far is the Swedish Horse who from 1700 to 1709, when the remnants of the Swedish Army ruined by exposure were finally defeated by overwhelming numbers, massed artillery and earthern redoubts, savaged Danes (who provided some of Marlboroughs very best Cavalry), Saxons, Poles and Russians.

    Unable to match such standards (think it helps if you are half nuts to play a Swede correctly) Spanish Cavalry in G7 is just doing its best to be more Austrian than the Austrians.......pity about the lack of Hussars, but we do a very nice line in Spanish Riding Schools and my horses are much better breed and a lot prettier than poor French Nags who get shoved into barges and drowned in siege lines.

    I said I wasn't much of a wargamer so am happy to go along with your explanation. I had been thinking of the contribution made by the French cavalry in Louis' campaigns from 1640-1700 where many battles were won/turned by the action of French horse. That the quality declined does not take away the importance of cavalry which the French had a knack of using at just the right time, e.g. Battle of Rocroi, even Battle of Seneffe where it was action by French cavalry which allowed the French to control the battle and halt the Dutch advance; Battle of Steenkerque where for some reason the Dutch cavalry didn't seem to perform at all whilst the French cavalry was able to halt English infantry long enough for the French infantry to finish them off; Battle of Landen where a French cavalry assault on the Dutch centre pushed them out from their defences and they were slaughtered, leaving William to sacrifice his cavalry to save the remnants of his army. French cavalry does appear to have gained a well deserved reputation as a battle-winning force over a long period.

    Papa Clement
    Papa Clement
    King
    King


    Number of posts : 681
    Reputation : 10
    Registration date : 2019-02-10

    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Papa Clement Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:05 am

    J Flower wrote:
    Stuart Bailey wrote:"My current theory for slow speed of Spanish Cavalry and why James Stuarts Horse keep vanishing is that the Spanish Cavalry are horse lovers who do not want them getting a hot with sore hoofs.  While English Horse are mostly lead by voters just do not like James Stuart very much and are likely to bugger off home at the first bad news or bit of rain........well its a theory which does seem to meet the facts."

    In the Prussian army Horse "Lovers" end up getting demoted to the Infantry.

    I can assure you that all my (named) commanders are now loyal, so I think we can discount that possibility. Also the rules do say that honour of 10 or more is exceptional and means that a ruler is generally admired. A score of 6 is deemed average, and only when it dips to 1-3 is there a danger of unpopularity or being 'disliked intensely' by some members of high society. Since I have needed to make quite radical changes to society, I would be surprised if my honour was not at times below average. But if you read the newspapers carefully even my natural political enemies have been supportive recently, which just goes to show that perseverance against the odds can bind a country together. It may well be that King James even appears on the honour table in the not too distant future - stranger things have happened. Sometimes the more outlandish anti-Jacobite propaganda actually boosts my honour and gives a reason for ordering the very things that propaganda seeks to prevent.

    I do quite like JFlower's suggestion that I could convert H to infantry ... I had read it was possible to convert D to H so assume this is possible with H. Of course simply dispensing with horse doesn't solve the problem of horse attrition, but it should bring me units who are prepared to fight.


    Sponsored content


    Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use? Empty Re: Engineers/miners/vets ... are they any use?

    Post by Sponsored content

      Similar topics

      -

      Current date/time is Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:59 am