G7....War declared

Papa Clement wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:
4) Think what needs to be stressed more is that the weather last month was terrible and this month it was terrible in the Baltic, East Europe, Western Europe, West Indies and the Pacific and basically most people are less interested in fighting than finding Winter Quarters.  It is also of note that Agema have started to pay attention too the size of towns/cities and both the Russians in Minsk, Swedes in  Bialystok, Austrians in Saarbrucken, French in St-Jean-de-Port all seem to be finding out that their Winter Quarters are too small.

This is an important point, and perhaps there has been a subtle rule change.  The rules do state that towns have no upper limit to the number of units that can be stationed within them, and also that a single army camp is sufficient to house those units rather than having them billeted on the population (which is unpopular).  Units can recover SL levels more quickly in larger towns, so perhaps there has been a modification here - if the population is upset (or you are in a hostile town) then your units struggle to recover SL and are more exposed to the weather?  I don't know.  But since not all towns are on the Agema maps and town populations are not always known until you have occupied it, it is rather difficult to estimate the capacity for a town to shelter troops.

Seems to be happening in G10 too. A while back I asked Richard to add population numbers to all towns/villages on Russia's G10 asset report and have noticed that towns that have their name on the asset report written entirely in capital letters are sized 10,000 population and above. These seem to be towns in that they can hold an army.

Towns with less than 10,000 population are in usual format of first letter capitalised with rest lower case and are what I'd consider small towns/villages not capable of holding an army. Recently asking Richard how many troops a named town could hold came back with a number of units.

Suspect there is a limit on the size army that can fit in a fortification if population is under 10k. Would need to be in a town 10k+ to hold 'unlimited' units, though I'd have thought hypothetically that if I tried putting Russia's entire land forces into a kremlin it would be a squash.

Interesting.

I think there is a rule which says stand-alone fortresses can hold 30 units?

I've had a look down my asset list and tried to match historic populations of towns where known and it does seem to be inconsistent.  London (to use an extreme example) has a game population of 674,800, yet the historic population was 350,000 in 1662 and 675,000 in 1750, so the game population figure is historically closer to 1750.  The trouble is, of course, that this was during the early industrial revolution so in 1662 Winchester was the 30th largest city in England (game population 10,000, and so in capital letters), but by 1750 Manchester was the 5th largest with a real world population of 18,000 (game population of 39,000).  Not all towns have population figures against them, e.g. Norwich, which in 1662 was the 2nd largest town in England with a population of 60,000.  By 1801 it was 35,633.

Towns in Ireland tend to be smaller (Dublin, the largest city, is less than 10,000, so if you're right Marshall, no city in Ireland can house an 'unlimited' number of units?)

Now obviously players can resettle civilians in towns to make them larger, although if this is at the expense of agriculture I suppose it increases the risk of famine, and also could bring disease and social problems.  

Also Agema population figures tend to be for the town and surrounding countryside, so direct historical comparisons are probably meaningless.

Where does this leave players?  I don't know.  Perhaps we are slightly to blame for building a building in a town which wasn't shown on the Agema map and/or moving an army to a nearby settlement during a war.  I remember during my war in Scotland, Edinburgh was marked on the map and had its own population, but when I sent troops by sea, I was told that Leith was the port of Edinburgh (which then appeared with a separate population of 739 people); the same happened with Glasgow (and Newport Glasgow, pop.1,000).  Both Glasgow and Edinburgh were larger towns (in capitals), yet they were subdivided?   Was this historically more accurate and led to more interesting game play - yes and yes, which I suppose is what it is all about.  Not every town can be shown on the map and it must be very time consuming to update population figures.  But it would be helpful if there was a standard rule so that players are not completely in the dark.

Papa Clement wrote:Interesting.

I think there is a rule which says stand-alone fortresses can hold 30 units?

Core rule book page 23, but has it a bit more nuanced than that

'Where a fortress is not surrounding a town, it can comfortably hold up to 30 units (battalions, squadrons or batteries). Towns have no upper limit.'

My earlier post was more about unfortified towns, but above could imply that even in a large town like London if the Tower of London, by your figures, was only a citadel and London didn't have any 'modern' surrounding walls then possibly could only fit 30 units in it, even if the town could hold more or unlimited? Or does 'Towns have no upper limit' mean towns with 'modern' walls (as opposed to old walls which don't seem to have a defensive value)? I'd need to explore that further in game to get an answer.

Same with whether have fortifications around a location with less than 10k population would that enable unlimited units in the town? Physically I can't see how that would work for a 'town' on 200 population so assuming for game mechanics that a town of less than 10k population wouldn't count for unlimited units, but again need to explore this in game more.

Papa Clement wrote:
Towns in Ireland tend to be smaller (Dublin, the largest city, is less than 10,000, so if you're right Marshall, no city in Ireland can house an 'unlimited' number of units?)

Now obviously players can resettle civilians in towns to make them larger, although if this is at the expense of agriculture I suppose it increases the risk of famine, and also could bring disease and social problems.  

Also Agema population figures tend to be for the town and surrounding countryside, so direct historical comparisons are probably meaningless.

I've not managed a consistent correlation of exact historic data to game figures but then who's to say any historic population figure is exact? I assume the population size works for the game and could partly be a fudge to balance the game mechanics, as you say it includes a wider area than just the town. It's not really a problem anyway.

Papa Clement wrote:
Where does this leave players?  I don't know.  Perhaps we are slightly to blame for building a building in a town which wasn't shown on the Agema map and/or moving an army to a nearby settlement during a war.  I remember during my war in Scotland, Edinburgh was marked on the map and had its own population, but when I sent troops by sea, I was told that Leith was the port of Edinburgh (which then appeared with a separate population of 739 people); the same happened with Glasgow (and Newport Glasgow, pop.1,000).  Both Glasgow and Edinburgh were larger towns (in capitals), yet they were subdivided?   Was this historically more accurate and led to more interesting game play - yes and yes, which I suppose is what it is all about.  Not every town can be shown on the map and it must be very time consuming to update population figures.  But it would be helpful if there was a standard rule so that players are not completely in the dark.

Richard added the population figures for me previously across a few turns and I suspect there's a standard rule that's not widely publicised. The game books would get too bogged down with too much 'clutter' to include everything and Richard's usually able to give hints via NPC's if not an exact ruling to answer enquiries - would be a bit boring if everything in game was either or and gives more of a real life flavour in that most things have a grey area.

I had Leith listed separately when I played Scotland many years ago, forget which game, but if you look at the history of Leith and Newport ('Port Glasgow' as it became known later is more google friendly). Leith had its own Town Council and governance etc so I feel is correct to be listed separately. Newport was built on the hamlet of Newark next to Newark castle and became its own royal burgh in the 19th century. As one of 3 inverclyde ports serving Glasgow because shipping couldn't get upriver at the time it also feels right to be listed separately in the 18th century given to me they weren't at the time close enough to be considered the same urban conurbation.

I tend to agree, Marshall ... I like the idea that building modern fortifications round a town will increase its troop capacity.  One of the points I was making was that the rules are a compromise on historical reality and if they become too complicated then it does make game play more difficult.  It has been a while since I looked into populations, but an average 'town' in 1700 could be 1,000-2,000 people with anything more significant being unusual.  I agree that the separation of Leith/Newport from Edinburgh/Glasgow makes sense, so it wasn't a criticism, more an observation that on the Agema maps and the original listings for the position, there was no such separation.

If you look at other Scottish towns they are nearly all 2,000 (game) population or lower, irrespective of their political status.

I'm wondering if this attention to population sizes for army capacities is also linked to colonial development?  I've noticed over the last year or so that if I ordered a building built in a colony, I would be informed that it would take considerably longer due to lack of manpower.  On isolated islands that sort of makes sense, but it does complicate things considerably and seems to go against the idea that the population of a town includes that of the surrounding area.  Just one quick example: the population of St.Michael's Town, Barbados is reported at 1,200 people; for Barbados itself 5,000 (excluding St.Michael's Town).  And that's for one little island, albeit a reasonably developed one so I'm not likely to be building much more there.  Yet if you go further north to the Bahamas, even building a repair yard on and island can be delayed for months because the population size is suddenly reported as 3 men and a dog.  Think about how this interacts with the new supply rules and if you send a garrison to an island only to find it has few if any population, the garrison starves?

On subject of putting armies into a town issue which has always bothered me is "Where do all the horses go? And perhaps as important what happens to all the horse muck in a besieged town?"

Historically problems of this type ment that when armies went into winter quarters they were actually quartered over a wide area and many different towns and villages. But to do this in the game would add a layer of complexity it can do without.

Many garrisons did contain units of horse/dragoons but these tended to be hundreds rather than thousands and often went into the covered way on the side of the fortress away from the main effort of the besiegers. If the siege was a long one or food for the horses ran out the horses got slaughtered and the meat formed a important part of the towns food stocks.

Nothing says "we are all in this as one and we are going to hold out" like the Garrison commander ordering horse meat dinners for all starting with his own prize steeds. Of course one reason why many sieges ended with a quick civilized agreement for the garrison too withdraw with all its horses and weapons was to avoid having to do things like slaughter your own horses, followed by dogs, cats, rats etc

Fact that horses and troops looking after them were mostly outside the main defences/urban area of a city often resulted in what was known as the "war of the lines" in which troops like Hussars, Grenzer, Cossacks etc raided the other sides quarters for fun and profit - profit often in the form of stolen horses. In game terms this is a good way to mess up an Armies "rest".

Tried this tactic in the past and it has worked fairly well but Spanish Genetes trying to raid French horse lines at Bayonne were recently foiled by the extented fortifications of this location as the horses were all considered to be within the extended fortification rather than grazing outside.

In game terms this would seem to be an additional advantage of "extended" fortifications. The disadvantage other than the cost is that such extended fortifications need a much larger garrison than normal and even a large garrison can find itself so ground down by the fight over the extended defences that it is in no condition to hold the main defences.

Think reason some city ports like Leith the port of Edinburgh and also the ports of Rome and Athens being treated as seperate may be due to historic campaigns and even player orders. So a player may follow the campaign of the Lord Protector Somerset and try and take the Port of Leith by storm and Naval gunfire. Then land his siege guns etc and proceed to try and capture Edinburgh which is mostly on a rock a couple of miles inland.

St Elmo on Malta and the Montjuich outside of Barcelona are are other famous examples of stand alone but linked fortifications. Players can ignore if they so wish and for example put all their garrison in Edinburgh or proceed directly to the siege of Edinburgh. But then run risk of either attackers having a nice base to land siege equipment and supplies for siege if the defenders ignore. Or if the attackers ignore they run risk of relief Army sailing into Leith and landing in perfect comfort only a mile and a bit from your siege lines.

Of course the disadvantage of dealing wth Leith, St Elmo etc first is that your forces can end up so knacked after initial effort that they then fail to take main objective.

January 1718 turn has arrived and in some respects it has been rather quiet.

1. There has been a significant change in game mechanics regarding sick lists and the healing of units, and also in respect of the ships lost in storms.  In view of this, and because it is no longer clear which merchant ships have been lost to enemy action and which to storms, I don’t think it makes much more sense to award the Tsar’s Our Ships Sank Trophy.  My comments on the rule change will follow this newspaper update.  Over 80 vessels (unknown whether they were merchant ships or naval patrols, nor their nationality) “have met a watery end after being crashed against the Caribbean shore of Mexico”  If we assume they are Spanish then Spain would have won the trophy, but that would be unfair.  So with regret, this popular feature of the G7 writeups is now consigned to the past.

2. As mentioned there have been numerous storms in nearly every part of the world with significant losses to naval vessels (although oddly in several instances this allowed captured merchant prizes to escape).  I suspect this was aimed at reducing the number of small armed ships which are vulnerable in storms, while also restoring unarmed prizes to their trading duties.  Although not all storms seem to have had the same impact: at Rochefort, 11 French cutters escaped from the Spanish Navy, yet in the Bay of Biscay Spanish Frigates had to abandon their action against French cutters when the storms hit.  If the storm was bad enough to place a frigate at risk, surely the cutters would have been sunk by more moderate weather?

3. In London, it has been a month of surprises with tariffs being higher than King James expected and the Royal Navy’s Pension Scheme needing some attention.

4. In UDP, now he has been elected Stadtholder of UDP, Prince Friso has resigned as Stadholder of Gelderland, recommending they vote for Charles Vasa.  Now I’m not entirely sure who Charles Vasa is … from memory, I think the name Vasa was associated with Poland or Sweden, which could mean Poland is seeking another ally or the Kalmar Union is trying to consolidate its reach?  Perhaps things will become clearer in the next few turns?

5. Spain seems to be distracted by anti-French propaganda to the point where King Charles is forgetting to pay the dues to his ‘allies’.  I guess that’s the trouble with trying to buy support – once you stop paying, your ‘friends’ disappear.

6. King Frederick of Prussia has also realised that promises have a cost and has decided to disband the Order of the Red Eagle for financial reasons.

7. Russia has issued some peace terms to Poland which give a new meaning to the phrase ‘shotgun wedding’.  Religious differences (underlined by the Tsarina’s words in St.Petersburg) may make such a marriage impossible, but it is a brave attempt.  Meanwhile, a large Polish army has moved to Mittau ready to face the Kalmar Forces, and at Gomel the 4th Russian Army has also tried to find shelter.  In both cases, the new rules on army accommodation seem to be causing some difficulty.

8. In America, English troops have begun to arrive to replace Russian forces.  Overall they were welcomed strongly.

9. A new pirate may have appeared to replace Blackbeard, known as ‘Black Caesar’.  Historically this character did exist – a former slave and member of Blackbeard’s crew who rather oddly was acquitted of piracy.  Does this mean that Blackbeard has now died of lung cancer?  Only time will tell, but it is interesting that Spain has freed numerous slaves this month who may well be more willing to serve under a former slave turned pirate than continue to pick cotton or sugar on inadequate wages.

10. Persia is trying to cement its alliance with the pirate ‘king’ Ramina and been heavily criticised by the Sharif of Hejaz for “turning the anchorage at Jedda into a carnal house and filling it with timbers which will be a hazard to pilgrim shipping.”   Well he does have a point!  Persia has also been busy building new gaols to house captured merchant sailors at Ft.Sadras, which is rather curious since on my map, Ft.Sadras was described as being Dutch.  Perhaps I was overly optimistic about improving relations with UDP?

11. Prisoners have continued to escape Spanish custody, this time at Luzon, where French prisoners escaped the gaols of Manila.

So overall a reasonably quiet turn, except for the storms, with quite a lot for players to think about going forward.  My next post will kick off a discussion the new sick list rules.

Discussion of Sick Lists

This is a valuable clarification (which I assume will appear in other games), but it also raises a number of practical questions.  I'm still thinking through the implications, but to generate a discussion among players, here are my initial musings ...

As I remember it, the SL system was introduced (in part) to avoid the need to calculate how many men had been lost on the march (or as a ship sailed) and therefore to send more men out in tiny numbers from a central recruit pool, to ‘restore’ the unit to fighting efficiency.  Thus it could be argued that an increased SL does represent losses due to illness and was a concession to players (and to enhance the playability of the game). Of course in real life soldiers died in barracks, men fell overboard, but they were replaced naturally in towns/ports as part of everyday life and so didn't really need to be part of the game.  However, in (game) practice, after a major battle very often entire units were lost to ‘attrition’ simply as they sought to find a safe town to rest/recover in.  So it could appear that a battle had been won in June, but in July (when ordered to rest) the formation disappears.  Logically the SL an army received in June should have reflected its current fighting state and that would give players a chance to take remedial action to save the army.  It is also reasonable, in my view, that any army in the field can rely on supplies from depots/granaries automatically (where these are available or if not via existing patrols) without players having to specify this for each formation (in the same way that town watch can be assumed to be on the look out for criminals without having to order this each turn for each town watch).  

This is necessary otherwise armies simply become disposable as soon as they move – SL levels will be high to the point of the formation being militarily useless, and combined with the need to shelter in large cities, that SL will not reduce.  You can take a town, but not defend it against a counter-attack.  In Perpignan, for example, the town has been ravaged by disease, shelled by mortars for months, there have been high civilian casualties, but barely any buildings standing – and now a large Spanish army is trying to rest there over the winter.  Logically that Spanish army will increase its SL by resting, and a fresh French force of 1F should be able to push them out of the town.  Basically the town has been destroyed, which may well be the natural consequence of war, but to what extent do the new rules reflect this or indeed give players options to respond?  

More broadly, since it takes 12 months to fully drill an army, why should players bother to spend 18 real world months creating one when on its first outing (to its new garrison somewhere), it arrives at SL4-5 and is so unfit to fight that when an enemy approaches, it surrenders?

This is also tied in to what town populations mean.  My understanding of the ‘population’ figure was that it represented not just the town, but the surrounding area, i.e. so it could be used as a proxy for the size of army which could be supported without putting a strain on local infrastructure.  But, if an army arrives in a town it will create a demand for food and other supplies, which local merchants will naturally seek to supply, so the very presence of the army will both stimulate the local economy and boost its capacity to support that army well above the base population of the town.  Up to a point this may be reflected in the ‘discussion’, but it would be helpful to provide some numbers to give players a steer on when they could run into difficulties.  Shortage of accommodation is clearly one major factor, but that (under current rules?) is overcome by building an ‘army camp’.  Should it simply be stated that an ‘army camp’ provides enough space for 10,000 soldiers, horses and equipment to be safely housed?  So that if you move an army of 40,000 men into a town, a player knows he has to build 4 army camps to look after them, otherwise SL will not reduce?  What is the quantified impact of having a hospital in the town?  Do any FC and 5F garrison present count towards the total or if fortifications exist, do the fortifications come with inbuilt facilities?

For these new rules to work, some clarification and rule of thumb measure (relating population size to army capacity) really needs to be issued otherwise there will be chaos and players will get somewhat demoralised at losing forces they have spent a lot of time creating.  We have that for ship carrying capacities and it works well.  If players choose to disregard the rule and overload their ships then they soon realise what the consequences are.  A similar measure will need to be stated for standalone fortresses and if having a citadel (or fortress) within a city increases troop holding capacity.

The new ‘disperse’ order may help up to a point, but is this not basically an extension of the idea that a force is more vulnerable if attacked when ‘resting’?  So if you are ‘dispersed’ (especially in enemy territory) then you are more vulnerable to losing entire units from an enemy skirmish patrol?

The SL rules also provided for units to be raised with fewer recruits than is normal with the result that a unit had a naturally higher SL above which it could not reach until more recruits were supplied.  I'm not sure whether this is now no longer possible or how that variation is compatible with the new recovery rules.


On the specific point about ships and storms, it is quite true, of course, that ships have always been lost to storms, mistakes in navigation and poor seamanship.  But if we limit the discussion to storms, most larger ships (Frigates and above) were built to withstand them; they knew that they either battened down the hatches and rode it out, then made repairs at sea (which they were expected to do) or allowed themselves to be blown off course and once they had established their new position plotted a new course, or seek shelter in a nearby port.  Smaller ships were more vulnerable to storms, but this is already noted in the rulebook.  Nobody who understands about ships would send a cutter out into the middle of the ocean in a storm, but keep them closer to shore.

It is also true that not all ports were deep enough to take SoL or a large quantity of ships, but the existing rules did seem to allow for this through the construction of a new ‘port’, with wharfs, jetties, etc.  Roadsteads (as natural features) should also provide shelter from the weather.  Many towns/ports were built on estuaries and ships would also use the river as shelter (a kind of inland roadstead).  A port like Cadiz or Jamaica or Bombay had a naturally protected harbour which could safely protect hundreds of ships, so geographically each port is different.

Of course if a fleet has already been battered by a storm then it will be far more vulnerable to attack and/or further storms, and although SoL could be reduced to floating hulks in a battle, most of them made it back to port afterwards because they could be towed by smaller ships.  Wooden ships also repaired very quickly, and it is perhaps a weakness of the SL system that it is not always clear whether it is the ship which needs some repairs or the crew.  If the crew can be saved then it could be transferred as passengers on another vessel while the ship is towed, thereby potentially saving both?

I do wonder if we risk introducing yet another layer of complexity which will make campaigns even harder to plan and fight?  There will always be a random element to be considered, but if playability is not to be compromised, I think there also needs to be more clarity on the impact of options available to players to mitigate the impact of ‘bad luck’.  Without this then we risk moving an army or fleet becoming as open to ‘bad luck’ as famine is for those players who prefer to focus on the economic development of their nation.  The world may be uncertain, but players tend to need a high degree of certainty about what they need to order to achieve xyz, and to have confidence that when they then order it, it should work or they can recover when it doesn't.  Such a fundamental change impacts on quite long-standing game concepts and will have far-reaching implications on how the game is played, so perhaps it needs to be looked at in terms of a new edition of the rules?

Ref Papa Clements comments and the new "Disperse" order :-

a) The usual list of ships lost too privateers was published and the English beat the Persians by a score of 18 to 8.

However this was rather over shadowed by Storm losses with a reported 80 ships washed ashore on the shores of Mexico. Can confirm that in worst Spanish Naval losses of the whole war this figure included 4 Spanish Great Frigates and 8 French prizes (1 corvette, 2 sloops of the French Navy and 5 French merchant prizes). Assume the other 68 plus perhaps others at sea include merchant ships and Naval patrol ships of the main powers in the region.

Interestingly this losses were sustained by a patrol in good condition but returning to depot. Have experienced same when sailing in Biscay when on getting a bad weather forecast (not on offer to C18 sailors) the experienced sailors I was with decided that too head out to sea and into the storm and make sea room was better option than trying to out-run the storm and risk being caught against the coast and driven aground.

b) Prince Paul Leszczynski......who he? But if he is a nice catholic boy with a Crown...........surely he should marry a Hapsburg? In desperate attempt to produce male heirs we seem to have super supply of really nice and loveable Hapsburg Princess to find grooms for and its not nice if Orthodox and Protestant players go around nicking them. Surely some Russian Prince can marry a Polish girl in order to seal the deal? Or even better a nice Orthodox girl from Lithuania?

Or the young Duke of Courland who is a nephew of the King in Prussia can marry a nice Vasa girl in order to mark his transfer from the defunt Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth too the Kulmar Union.

c) If Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth breaks into its original bits of the Kingdom of Poland (inc Polish Ukraine), Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Duchy of Courland what about the City-State of Danzig founder member of the Hansa with a mostly German population, plus a load of Scots? Does it go its own way waiting to be gobbled up or does it join the Kingdom of Poland?

d) The Vasa are the Royal Family of Sweden who also provided many Kings of Poland/Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Can see the link with Danzig but Gelderland?! Also are we talking about upper or lower Gelderland? Upper Gelderland may well have a Stadtholder, Lower Gelderland has a Duke and his name is Charles von Hapsburg AKA Charles the Good King of Spain, King of the Two Sicilies, Duke of Milan, Duke of Flanders etc.

Seems like we could easily end up with one of those dodgy Russian map events.

e) Why the hell should members of the Cuban Tobacco Guild or the mighty South and Central American guild of miners, silver smiths and allied trades throw aside decades work to get too their current status for a new career in piracy or picking cotton? These are the economic Mamlukes and Janissary Corp of Spanish America often starting as slaves but working their way up in the Guild to a position of rather more comfort where they give the orders and buy own slaves? Also why would a pirate want miners and tobacco traders on his ship? Mostly pirates recruit amongst other sailors either from ports or via making crews of their prizes an "offer they can not refuse".

f) Ottomans not very happy about Persian fleet fighting a battle in their port and turning it into a carnel house. But equally unhappy about "English infidels invading Jedda".

g) Spanish dragoons actually stopped escaped French POWs from turning to a life of Crime and returned them to a nice new Goal in Manila too await exchange.

Ref the new "Disperse" rule this seems a bit 30 years war/eastern Europe (though also used by Louis XIV in Germany) where rather than paying for upkeep and supply the Army would be dispersed across a whole area and would demand "free quarter" with households forcred to feed and shelter troops/horses and even provide the troops with new clothes all at the householders own cost. This was economically terrible for an area as even seed corn got eat and even worse than a passing army living off the land. With such affected areas sometimes referred too as having been "eaten out" and having to be avoided by military forces for years after as they could no longer provide supplies.

Swedes, Russia and French armies was infamous their brutal nature when taking "free quarter" from a region and it should be noted that this was normally done in hostile territory. For the Russians and the Swedes it tended to be due too lack on money and supply lines in eastern Europe which would allow them to supply a Army from central supplies. Louis XIV however used this tactic as a method too terrorize and threaten small German statues. Also by "eating out" the Palantine etc he made it very hard for Imperial forces to campaign in these areas and invade France.

Louis also used such methods against Protestant areas in his own country, putting his Dragoon Regiments into such areas to both terrify the locals, grind them down economically and also break up Protestant religious meetings to such effect that vast majority of French protestants either fled the country or converted.

The problem with "dispersal" is that it takes a long time to gather such troops which will both slow down future campaigns and leave you open too an attack. Not as bad as a Navy being caught in Dry Dock but still bad, historically it also lead to mass desertion and was terrible for discipline as troops outside of sight of officiers. Which was main reason why Louis XIV started building barracks for his troops......not because he worried about their comfort.

Basically "dispersal" is an order given if you are either stuck in the wilds of the eastern Europe with town no bigger than small villages and the roads having turned to mud or under 6 foot of snow so you can not bring in supplies of grain and your foes are going to really struggle to move as well. Also given if you are feeling either lazy or very poor (in cash or grain or both) and can not be bothered with logistics. Or are of hostile territory and feeling nasty.

Other nicer commanders will probably continue to supply their forces over winter so as not too over burden locals and also split up forces into groupings which can do specific jobs, go too various mutually support locations for winter and enable some too rest while other keep up campaign on remain on guard. As example the 1st Army of Spain for its recent Perpignan Campaign had I) The Siege Trayne which conducted Siege II) A screen of Pickets which was watching for French relief from North III) The main field Army with majority of heavy cavalry, Army HQ and main commander which acted as "An Army of Observation" ready to attack if French tried to break siege of Perpignan - sent whole campaign resting in its fortified camp IV) A new garrison for Perpignan including fortress gun crews ready to take over from Siege Tryne V) Garrison in Fort James, Gerona and Barcelona ready to provide supplies, reinforcements etc VI) Several regiments of Dragoons who basically sent campaign escorting grain and various supply patrols.

Off course this type of campaign is easier when you are less than a month away from a city with a population of 150,000 and over a 1m tons of grain in store. And have "A" class roads and fortified positions inc a town which would probably count as a major city in Lithuannia almost all the way. Sure Spain used more cash and grain plus larger numbers of troops to besiege two frontier fortresses and only managed to take one of them than other players have used to take over whole countries.

But its very much horses for cources and what works in one area may fail badly elsewhere. So in some locations you need speed, dash and then disperse your troops before logistics drown in autumn rains and winter snow and you starve. In other places greater care in needed, suspect that anyone who tries to disperse in face of G7 French Army or in Spain is going to get smashed into a pulp!

Stuart Bailey wrote:
a) The usual list of ships lost to privateers was published and the English beat the Persians by a score of 18 to 8.

However this was rather over shadowed by Storm losses with a reported 80 ships washed ashore on the shores of Mexico.  Can confirm that in worst Spanish Naval losses of the whole war this figure included 4 Spanish Great Frigates and 8 French prizes (1 corvette, 2 sloops of the French Navy and 5 French merchant prizes).  Assume the other 68 plus perhaps others at sea include merchant ships and Naval patrol ships of the main powers in the region.

Interestingly this losses were sustained by a patrol in good condition but returning to depot.  Have experienced same when sailing in Biscay when on getting a bad weather forecast (not on offer to C18 sailors) the experienced sailors I was with decided that too head out to sea and into the storm and make sea room was better option than trying to out-run the storm and risk being caught against the coast and driven aground.

The list of ships 'lost' has been incomplete for several months now, with other entries scattered among the narrative in the newspaper.   I don't think it has ever just listed ships lost to piracy or war.  Add in the new rule on storm losses and it just isn't clear any more how many merchant ships are lost at any particular time, as Stuart's admission demonstrates.

The Bay of Biscay is always a rather difficult sea weather-wise, but there are normally ports to run to close by, or even beaches where ships could run themselves onto or crews could find safety.  Thinking about this issue again, if there is going to be random storms and sinking of ships on realism grounds, then there should also be random crews who manage to make it to islands or outcrops, and a random chance that these crews are rescued by passing merchant ships.  It seems rather unfair on Stuart that 80 ships are lost against the Mexican shore, with no survivors?  Especially given that Mexico is Spanish and presumably is not full of hostile cannibals.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
b) Prince Paul Leszczynski......who he?  But if he is a nice catholic boy with a Crown...........surely he should marry a Hapsburg?  In desperate attempt to produce male heirs we seem to have super supply of really nice and loveable Hapsburg Princess to find grooms for and its not nice if Orthodox and Protestant players go around nicking them.  Surely some Russian Prince can marry a Polish girl in order to seal the deal?  Or even better a nice Orthodox girl from Lithuania?  

Or the young Duke of Courland who is a nephew of the King in Prussia can marry a nice Vasa girl in order to mark his transfer from the defunt Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth too the Kulmar Union.

c) If Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth breaks into its original bits of the Kingdom of Poland (inc Polish Ukraine), Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Duchy of Courland what about the City-State of Danzig founder member of the Hansa with a mostly German population, plus a load of Scots?  Does it go its own way waiting to be gobbled up or does it join the Kingdom of Poland?  

d) The Vasa are the Royal Family of Sweden who also provided many Kings of Poland/Grand Dukes of Lithuania.  Can see the link with Danzig but Gelderland?!  Also are we talking about upper or lower Gelderland?  Upper Gelderland may well have a Stadtholder, Lower Gelderland has a Duke and his name is Charles von Hapsburg AKA Charles the Good King of Spain, King of the Two Sicilies, Duke of Milan, Duke of Flanders etc.

Seems like we could easily end up with one of those dodgy Russian map events.

There are far too many Hapsburgs as evidenced by physical deformity and mental instability, so I can't see Prince Paul willingly going down that route no matter how much money Stuart pays him.  By the way they have stood up to a simultaneous attack by 4 different countries, I think we can be fairly sure that Poland appreciates its independence and isn't going to give up any territory willingly.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
f) Ottomans not very happy about Persian fleet fighting a battle in their port and turning it into a carnel house.  But equally unhappy about "English infidels invading Jedda".

England did not invade Jedda, but treated the locals with considerable respect and even fed them.  Also they were there with permission.  Question now to be asked is whether the ruler of Jedda has ignored England's agreement with the Grand Vizier and is therefore in rebellion against the Sultan?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
g) Spanish dragoons actually stopped escaped French POWs from turning to a life of Crime and returned them to a nice new Goal in Manila to await exchange.

If the new rule linking population to the ability to support armies applies, then surely it also applies in respect of PoWs?  This might be why there have been a number of prison breaks recently?  If the locals don't like supporting their own armies, imagine how much they dislike going short of supplies because they have to feed prisoners?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Ref the new "Disperse" rule this seems a bit 30 years war/eastern Europe (though also used by Louis XIV in Germany) where rather than paying for upkeep and supply the Army would be dispersed across a whole area and would demand "free quarter" with households forced to feed and shelter troops/horses and even provide the troops with new clothes all at the householders own cost.  This was economically terrible for an area as even seed corn got eat and even worse than a passing army living off the land.  With such affected areas sometimes referred too as having been "eaten out" and having to be avoided by military forces for years after as they could no longer provide supplies.

Swedes, Russia and French armies was infamous their brutal nature when taking "free quarter" from a region and it should be noted that this was normally done in hostile territory.  For the Russians and the Swedes it tended to be due to lack of money and supply lines in eastern Europe which would allow them to supply a Army from central supplies.  Louis XIV however used this tactic as a method to terrorize and threaten small German states.  Also by "eating out" the Palatine etc he made it very hard for Imperial forces to campaign in these areas and invade France.

Louis also used such methods against Protestant areas in his own country, putting his Dragoon Regiments into such areas to both terrify the locals, grind them down economically and also break up Protestant religious meetings to such effect that vast majority of French protestants either fled the country or converted.

The problem with "dispersal" is that it takes a long time to gather such troops which will both slow down future campaigns and leave you open too an attack.  Not as bad as a Navy being caught in Dry Dock but still bad, historically it also lead to mass desertion and was terrible for discipline as troops outside of sight of officers.  Which was main reason why Louis XIV started building barracks for his troops......not because he worried about their comfort.

Basically "dispersal" is an order given if you are either stuck in the wilds of the eastern Europe with town no bigger than small villages and the roads having turned to mud or under 6 foot of snow so you can not bring in supplies of grain and your foes are going to really struggle to move as well.  Also given if you are feeling either lazy or very poor (in cash or grain or both) and can not be bothered with logistics.  Or are of hostile territory and feeling nasty.  

Other nicer commanders will probably continue to supply their forces over winter so as not too over burden locals and also split up forces into groupings which can do specific jobs, go too various mutually support locations for winter and enable some too rest while other keep up campaign on remain on guard.  As example the 1st Army of Spain for its recent Perpignan Campaign had
I) The Siege Trayne which conducted Siege
II) A screen of Pickets which was watching for French relief from North
III) The main field Army with majority of heavy cavalry, Army HQ and main commander which acted as "An Army of Observation" ready to attack if French tried to break siege of Perpignan - sent whole campaign resting in its fortified camp
IV) A new garrison for Perpignan including fortress gun crews ready to take over from Siege Trayne
V) Garrison in Fort James, Gerona and Barcelona ready to provide supplies, reinforcements etc
VI) Several regiments of Dragoons who basically sent campaign escorting grain and various supply patrols.

Of course this type of campaign is easier when you are less than a month away from a city with a population of 150,000 and over a 1m tons of grain in store.  And have "A" class roads and fortified positions inc a town which would probably count as a major city in Lithuania almost all the way.  Sure Spain used more cash and grain plus larger numbers of troops to besiege two frontier fortresses and only managed to take one of them than other players have used to take over whole countries.

But its very much horses for courses and what works in one area may fail badly elsewhere.  So in some locations you need speed, dash and then disperse your troops before logistics drown in autumn rains and winter snow and you starve.  In other places greater care in needed, suspect that anyone who tries to disperse in face of G7 French Army or in Spain is going to get smashed into a pulp!

Interesting.  Perhaps the rule has been brought in to make it more difficult to campaign in areas outside western Europe?

It will certainly cause major problems for Russia in Lithuania/Poland since if you look on the really old maps where major towns were in capital letters (as a guide to those which would be classed as 'large' towns), there are very few of them at all.  My reading of the new rule is that it isn't about supplying troops with grain, but their ability to rest/recover SL in a smaller town.  In G7 at least, Spain is by far the most powerful nation in the game - several hundred million pounds in the bank, huge numbers of annual recruits, the best equipped, trained and probably largest armies, and therefore you can throw all the resources above at attacking a single town in France.  But where did it get you?  I know sieges were costly in real life, but would you have continued if after the first 2 months your force had achieved SL4-5 and you knew it couldn't recover that level (and it would be in even worse condition once it tried to move to a friendly town ... if it was ever able to recover at all?)

The 'disperse' order, as you've pointed out, is very risky and seems to contradict the previous 'rest/recover' order - we all (should) know that it is best to avoid billeting troops on civilians whether in a friendly town or a recently conquered one.  In a friendly town we can build an army camp which should increase the chance of units recovering, and usually does.  In a recently conquered town, building an army camp used to remove the 'hostile' element so at least gave your forces a chance.  But not now (unless I've read it wrong)?  The whole point of building an army camp is surely that supply and other aspects are taken care of by the building, not by having to specify it for each formation which is just an encumbrance.  

You are right that historically 'disperse' was an encouragement to desert, especially over the winter when campaigning was put on hold.  Command and control became impossible because officers weren't present while armed men who were left unsupplied and cold had little incentive to stay or report the next season.  It is almost like making units inactive over the winter?  I would suspect if any did return then 'high morale' would be lost (since the unit was not really existing while dispersed) and those who came back after a few months without army discipline would be 'low morale', so issue the 'disperse' order and find your units may come back with a slight SL reduction, but at low morale and not really keen on conducting a siege operation in the new campaigning season?

I don't know.

I do think, though, that the threat of countries being 'eaten out' by wars not of their own making would add yet another disincentive for players to take on smaller positions and leave only the large positions viable.  As you know, I've played several smaller positions during my years in the game, often in unusual areas.  Would I have been able to campaign in those areas under these new rules?  I don't think so.  At least not without accepting that each year I would effectively have to start again from scratch with a new army.  When turns were running once a fortnight, it might still make sense, but not once ever 5-6 weeks.  A game is always better when there is a range of positions played, not just the larger positions; not everyone has the time or real world money to take on a position of the size of Spain, Russia or France, but they can still make a valuable contribution by playing UDP or even a pirate position.  I'm not quite sure how Blackbeard could have recovered SL since pirates have secret hideaways and don't tend to find many 'large towns' safe enough for them to rest in?

Some excellent points made. Thanks to Stuart and Robert.

With these new rules I am wondering the point of playing on.

The game is already slow and expensive. These rules affect both time and money adversely unfortunately. That’s before we get onto playability. Which these rules adversely effect.

With new, younger players in short, if not non existent supply. One wonders what Agema is thinking of by coming up with these rule changes.

jamesbond007 wrote:Some excellent points made. Thanks to Stuart and Robert.

With these new rules I am wondering the point of playing on.

The game is already slow and expensive. These rules affect both time and money adversely unfortunately. That’s before we get onto playability. Which these rules adversely effect.

With new, younger players in short, if not non existent supply. One wonders what Agema is thinking of by coming up with these rule changes.

While I have pointed out some possible problems with ordering "disperase" esp for players in Western Europe. Too be fair it does offer some advantages too the hardcore wargamer who is planning a campaign:-

Esp if you are playing a Ottoman, Persian, Indian, Swedish or a Russian position it can take almost the whole campaign season to get into a position too attack. So basically some poor Ottoman has too spend the whole campaign season marching too a frontier and then he has to go into winter quarters which are too small for your Army and any complaints likely too tip off your opponent.

Think the cunning campaigner could move up to start point then order "disperse" for the Winter. Too be basically on his start point for the declaration of war and campaign start in next spring. Saving a lot of good campaign weather being wasted marching from Constantinople etc.

The other advantages of being dispersed is that a) Local resources of a small town in terms of food and shelter are not over strained (resulting in extra sickness levels) and b) Its harder for agents to pick up information on your forces. Should be noted that the main problem for most armies was not food/shelter for its men but provision of food and shelter for horses not too mention what too do with the muck produced by thousands of horses before it caused disease.

So what the historic influenced gamer may want to do is keep Infantry/Artillery at one central location and "disperse" most of the Cavalry. If agents report on medium sized say Polish or Russian force in a town but miss the 100 Squadrons of Cossacks dispersed over the wider area. Things could get interesting!

Having "dispersed" forces also brings out feature of 30 Years War, ECW and esp the 7 Years War and wars in Eastern Europe war in general known as the "War of the Posts" in which Hussars, Cossacks and Grenzer types in particular spent the Winter when it was too wet for major sieges and the like raiding each others quarters and stealing horses etc. Something which drove Frederick the Great nuts.

This seems a lot less common in WSS seemingly by mutual agreement as many of the Officers of both sides liked to return to London, Paris, Hague or Vienna for the winter in order to catch up with own affairs and talk with political allies. Personally I enjoy a good raid !!

Stuart Bailey wrote:While I have pointed out some possible problems with ordering "disperse" esp for players in Western Europe.  To be fair it does offer some advantages to the hardcore wargamer who is planning a campaign:-

Esp if you are playing a Ottoman, Persian, Indian, Swedish or a Russian position it can take almost the whole campaign season to get into a position too attack.  So basically some poor Ottoman has too spend the whole campaign season marching too a frontier and then he has to go into winter quarters which are too small for your Army and any complaints likely to tip off your opponent.

Think the cunning campaigner could move up to start point then order "disperse" for the Winter.  Too be basically on his start point for the declaration of war and campaign start in next spring.  Saving a lot of good campaign weather being wasted marching from Constantinople etc.

The other advantages of being dispersed is that:
a) Local resources of a small town in terms of food and shelter are not over strained (resulting in extra sickness levels) and
b) Its harder for agents to pick up information on your forces.  

Should be noted that the main problem for most armies was not food/shelter for its men but provision of food and shelter for horses not too mention what too do with the muck produced by thousands of horses before it caused disease.

So what the historic influenced gamer may want to do is keep Infantry/Artillery at one central location and "disperse" most of the Cavalry.  If agents report on medium sized say Polish or Russian force in a town but miss the 100 Squadrons of Cossacks dispersed over the wider area.  Things could get interesting!

Having "dispersed" forces also brings out feature of 30 Years War, ECW and esp the 7 Years War and wars in Eastern Europe war in general known as the "War of the Posts" in which Hussars, Cossacks and Grenzer types in particular spent the Winter when it was too wet for major sieges and the like raiding each others quarters and stealing horses etc.  Something which drove Frederick the Great nuts.

This seems a lot less common in WSS seemingly by mutual agreement as many of the Officers of both sides liked to return to London, Paris, Hague or Vienna for the winter in order to catch up with own affairs and talk with political allies.  Personally I enjoy a good raid !!

Some interesting points, but overall I'm not convinced.

Yes, it is an advantage for a player to move an army into an area just before he wants to declare war, 'disperse' it over the winter to hide his true intention, then attack at the start of the campaigning season, but what does he gain after a few months of fighting?  Nothing if he hasn't taken a town big enough to support that army; worse than that, he will have to retreat through land which has already been 'eaten out' over the previous winter.  As for the defender in that scenario, after he has moved his army and (if he is lucky enough to fight a battle, lost what remains of it to attrition or supply difficulties) is he reduced to fighting a guerilla campaign or lots of small skirmishers with patrols?  This is precisely the opposite of the previous Agema position which discouraged the splitting of formations into very small units in favour of more sizeable formations.

Dispersing cavalry but not infantry/artillery doesn't sound like a good idea to me, nor would it help in terms of numbers a town can support ... if, for example, you had 10F, 10H, 10Art (that's 7000+1500+1000 men = 9500) trying to shelter in a town of 5,000 people (which, don't forget, would be as large as many towns in England in 1700; it is more like 2,000 by the time you get to Eastern Europe, and lower than that in the colonies), you're still potentially over capacity even if you disperse your cavalry (8000 men to shelter/provision vs 9500).  And you leave those 8,000 men without their eyes and ears?  It was the light cavalry who went around foraging to bring supplies to the rest of the army.  If you really want to make a difference then you have to start 'dispersing' infantry, which gives problems with desertion, etc.

I may be wrong, but from my reading there were significant advances in how wars were fought throughout the 1600s to get to WSS when LGDR games start. So looking backwards to campaigns from 50-70 years before 1700 doesn't seem to be historically realistic.  Players also research new developments to try and gain an advantage, but what is the point if these new developments can't be put into practice because of new rest/recover rules?  Indeed, which of the existing rule modifications (grain restrictions on supplies an army can carry with it, etc, logistics corps, vet companies, camp followers/spare recruits?) still apply under these modifications? At the moment we don't know, but it would be jolly useful if we did!

If you want to be super-accurate in supply matters, armies also required tons of salt (both for the men and the horses), so should there be a special 'salt' rule introduced so that you could only move so many miles if you also had salt supplies?  Add in a 'fodder' score attached to each formation?  What about horse shoes?  Firewood for the blacksmiths?  If you start drilling down into this level of detail then you stop playing the game at a higher "move xyz formation to ..." and end up with half a page of logistics orders to submit at the same time as what was supposed to be a simple movement order, and then hope that the place you arrive at (if your army doesn't get lost ... maps at the time were notoriously inaccurate as well) just happens to be big enough to keep your army alive long enough to see the enemy.

Horse dung is the least of your problems - in the countryside, it goes straight on the fields ... in towns, well you'll just have to raise militarised night soil men as unit to go with your troops, so long as (of course) it doesn't tip you over the support limit for the place they happen to be staying!

The rules may more accurately reflect campaigning in WSS areas (i.e. Western Europe), but the game has grown since its earlier iterations and many players enjoy playing countries outside Europe or developing colonies.  In these areas settlements larger than 1-2,000 people were rare, and the existence of 'large' towns of 10,000+ where adequate rest may be obtained will be close to non-existent.  Many settlements are only a few hundred people (at least according to my asset list!); move the 'minimum garrison' of 5F, 100FC to such a colony (to defend it before it is developed) and see that entire formation gradually increase its sick list for the 2 years it takes to settle civilians, by which point it may start to 'recover' if it hasn't died by then? (If that is, your brand new ship, fully provisioned and lightly laden, isn't hit by a freak storm and sinks on the way).  The alternative appears to be that you either leave settlements undefended or end up moving lots of small detachments around which are effectively useless against a native raid let alone invasion from another player.   It is not just about wargaming, but undermines colonial development and therefore trade expansion and other features of the game.  So while I admire Stuart's optimism, I just don't see this working.

And above all I don't see which problem these rule changes are designed to address which as a human-moderated game, the GM does not already have the ability to sort?  It needs a rethink and/or a clarification.

I have to agree fully with Robert. I don’t see it working. I don’t see the point or need for it. The order to ‘ disperse’ could result in anything. A total lottery. How can you plan warfare with this variable.

Will honour have an effect on the dispersal order. With low honour How many if any will return after dispersal.? Can Elite troops disperse and reform and remain Elite.?

Hi,

I’m following the discussion with great interest, although I’m not jet been reached by the update in the rules. I wonder, might this be intended to force players to bring down the figures of armies to reality (i.e. Russia fielded no more than 70,000 men in the age, other where dispersed in the garrisons, England 35,000, UDP 60,000, and France could hardly hit 200,000, while today i see reports of medium sized nations with more than 200,000 soldiers in the field)?

Nexus06 wrote:Hi,

I’m following the discussion with great interest, although I’m not jet been reached by the update in the rules. I wonder, might this be intended to force players to bring down the figures of armies to reality (i.e. Russia fielded no more than 70,000 men in the age, other where dispersed in the garrisons, England 35,000, UDP 60,000, and France could hardly hit 200,000, while today i see reports of medium sized nations with more than 200,000 soldiers in the field)?

I would be very surprised if that was the aim of the new rule. The most important thing to remember here is. Playability. More compared to less is always more fun. Less armed forces also means less orders hence less turn fees. Not sure Agema will produce rule changes that hits their income.

Looking at what Richard's actually said in the paper it looks like the SL rules haven't changed and we've been playing with them for a while if not for the whole of G10's existence.

The disperse rule actually helps us if we find our armies in a small town area, if we want to use that option. Can't see what the problem is with the information and rule we've been given, just need to check out in advance if possible the size of any towns en-route and at destination if we're concerned - and think we should be anyway as why would you want to send 30-40,000 men to a town the size of a hamlet?

Marshal Bombast wrote:Looking at what Richard's actually said in the paper it looks like the SL rules haven't changed and we've been playing with them for a while if not for the whole of G10's existence.  

The ordinary rules stated that 'towns have no upper limit' to the number of troops they could support.  If this is no longer the case (as it appears to be) then 'support' does not mean 'can be stationed there without increases to SL'.  Hence the need, in my opinion, for some clarification as to how many units/men can be supported by towns of a certain population size.

Marshal Bombast wrote:The disperse rule actually helps us if we find our armies in a small town area, if we want to use that option. Can't see what the problem is with the information and rule we've been given, just need to check out in advance if possible the size of any towns en-route and at destination if we're concerned - and think we should be anyway as why would you want to send 30-40,000 men to a town the size of a hamlet?

I agree that if you are sending 30-40,000 men to a hamlet you can expect trouble, but as I have been pointing out for a while now, the rules state that the population of a 'town' includes the surrounding countryside, therefore it is not always clear from the asset list or gazetteer, what the population of any particular settlement is.  Nor do game estimates of population always agree with 3rd party sources so no matter how well a player has researched his campaign, he can still be undone.

One obvious example was in the campaign in Scotland.   I landed men at Leith which at that time was not considered to be a separate settlement to Edinburgh (which according to the gazetteer had a sizeable population, and my asset list a population of 25,000)  Leith (I discovered having landed there) has a population of 739.  Result under the new rules, my army cannot rest in Leith without increasing SL (despite the fact it could be supplied from the sea).  Distance between Leith and Edinburgh ... 2 miles!  Should Leith be considered a separate settlement to Edinburgh?  By one interpretation, yes; by another (and the then existing rules), no.  So in practical terms it is not always possible when on campaign to check out in advance the size of any towns en-route.  It was perfectly normal to use a town or settlement close to the main objective as a marshalling point or supply base to conduct a siege from, keeping the bulk of supplies and munitions out of range and 'safe', while simultaneously protecting a place to withdraw from if things went badly.  So I'm not talking about trying to do something which would be out of period.  This was just basic, simple campaigning.  I think the order given was so simple that I was just to sail to Edinburgh.

An army of 30-40,000 men is marching through many hamlets as it tries to reach a town, but it is assumed (if supplied with grain) that it carries its tents and other shelter with it.  Why then is an army not picking up SL when it moves, but is picking up SL when it rests?

And in any case, I don't see which problem these rule changes are designed to address which as a human-moderated game, the GM does not already have the ability to sort?  It needs a rethink and/or a clarification.

Papa Clement wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:Looking at what Richard's actually said in the paper it looks like the SL rules haven't changed and we've been playing with them for a while if not for the whole of G10's existence.  

The ordinary rules stated that 'towns have no upper limit' to the number of troops they could support.  If this is no longer the case (as it appears to be) then 'support' does not mean 'can be stationed there without increases to SL'.  Hence the need, in my opinion, for some clarification as to how many units/men can be supported by towns of a certain population size.

If I'm wrong with my assumption on where you got the above from could you give me the page number for that rule please. It looks like you're referring to the wording in the fortress section on page 23?

"Where a fortress is not surrounding a town, it can comfortably hold up to 30 units (battalions, squadrons or batteries). Towns have no upper limit."

So it's the fortress that can hold as many units as you have not a specific of the town. To my mind comfortably hold isn't the same as support, and it doesn't say that fortresses prevent SL from accruing. In a perfect storm of circumstances I can see SL increasing even if a small army is in a fortress in Paris with 600,000 population.

Equally a 30,000 strong army at a village with 1,000 population could accrue SL. So if your army is receiving an SL from standing around the new disperse rule is there to give an option to help tackle that scenario. Like all attempts at SL recovery as the rules say it's an attempt and not guaranteed to be successful. Doesn't stop us using nearby small or large 'towns' staging posts but these high concentrations of people in an army will attract the possibility of sickness wherever they are.

The core rules do say if a town has 10,000+ population and you order something to rest then it has a chance of recovering 2 sickness levels rather than 1. By inference a town of less than 10,000 would have the chance of recovering only 1 SL per attempt. This is the only reference to the size of town making a difference regarding SL that I can see.

The section in the paper about sick levels was labelled as a discussion that happened to drop another piece of information about the rules that we haven't read before, but it's not a change to the rules which Richard has said are being retained (not changed). It's unlikely to happen often that our armies suffer from SL increase while doing nothing but it's possible. The disperse order is a new order to help 'if' your army is somewhere and it's finding its SL is increasing - this is the issue I think is being addressed by giving us an option to do something.

Hope this helps understand better where I'm coming from but happy to discuss further.

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:Looking at what Richard's actually said in the paper it looks like the SL rules haven't changed and we've been playing with them for a while if not for the whole of G10's existence.  

The ordinary rules stated that 'towns have no upper limit' to the number of troops they could support.  If this is no longer the case (as it appears to be) then 'support' does not mean 'can be stationed there without increases to SL'.  Hence the need, in my opinion, for some clarification as to how many units/men can be supported by towns of a certain population size.

If I'm wrong with my assumption on where you got the above from could you give me the page number for that rule please. It looks like you're referring to the wording in the fortress section on page 23?

"Where a fortress is not surrounding a town, it can comfortably hold up to 30 units (battalions, squadrons or batteries). Towns have no upper limit."

So it's the fortress that can hold as many units as you have not a specific of the town. To my mind comfortably hold isn't the same as support, and it doesn't say that fortresses prevent SL from accruing. In a perfect storm of circumstances I can see SL increasing even if a small army is in a fortress in Paris with 600,000 population.

I don't have the rulebooks available to me at the moment, so am relying on memory and my experience of the last 30 years of game play.

However, I could be thinking of the fortress rule which if you've reproduced it correctly is clear: towns have no upper limit!  Perhaps this is where the confusion creeps in?  It is a separate sentence.  I read this quite clearly: towns have no upper limit (in terms of the number of troops that can be comfortably held) whereas fortresses do.

If your interpretation that it was the 'fortress' which determined how many units a town could hold then we have many variations: 'old' walls vs 'new walls', 'citadel', 'retracements', 'wooden stockade'?  It would be a nonsense to suggest that a town with a population of 1,000 which just happened to have 'new walls' or an 'old citadel' inside it, could hold 200,000 men, but the same town which had a hole in its walls (or as the result of a siege) was suddenly unable to hold the same number?  The reference to a fortress does make sense as a standalone fortress either outside a town or guarding a pass.

Either way, it doesn't change the substance of the point, which is that 'comfortably held' should equate to 'support'; else 'uncomfortably held' would become meaningless.  If you cram 50,000 troops into a standalone fortress then you would expect there to be problems - increased SL?

I may be wrong, but I can't see any other interpretation holding?

Marshal Bombast wrote:
Equally a 30,000 strong army at a village with 1,000 population could accrue SL. So if your army is receiving an SL from standing around the new disperse rule is there to give an option to help tackle that scenario. Like all attempts at SL recovery as the rules say it's an attempt and not guaranteed to be successful. Doesn't stop us using nearby small or large 'towns' staging posts but these high concentrations of people in an army will attract the possibility of sickness wherever they are.

This depends on what the definition of a town is and what size of town can comfortably support a certain size of army; how this level of support can be modified by the use of army camps, hospitals, etc; whether any existing garrison present in that town is counted within those figures, etc, etc, as in my previous posts.  It is not just about the new 'disperse' rule, but how all these factors interact.  Hence the need for clarification so players know how to use these rules.

Marshal Bombast wrote:
The core rules do say if a town has 10,000+ population and you order something to rest then it has a chance of recovering 2 sickness levels rather than 1. By inference a town of less than 10,000 would have the chance of recovering only 1 SL per attempt. This is the only reference to the size of town making a difference regarding SL that I can see.

The section in the paper about sick levels was labelled as a discussion that happened to drop another piece of information about the rules that we haven't read before, but it's not a change to the rules which Richard has said are being retained (not changed). It's unlikely to happen often that our armies suffer from SL increase while doing nothing but it's possible. The disperse order is a new order to help 'if' your army is somewhere and it's finding its SL is increasing - this is the issue I think is being addressed by giving us an option to do something.

Hope this helps understand better where I'm coming from but happy to discuss further.

Whether this has been widely publicised in the newspapers or not, I have noticed over the last year or so an increasing tendency for the population size of towns to become a factor limiting what can be done there.  Example: I have a small island, population 500-1000, and order an army camp and hospital built there ... next turn I am told that the army camp/hospital will not take 1 month and be operational, but that it will take 4-6 months, due to local labour shortages (i.e. population of the town/island is not large enough to do the work).  This can be hurried along by using any troops present as labourers (with the usual increase in SL and possibly incurring 'low morale' for doing so).  Meanwhile I may have ordered more units to be dispatched to that town and find that when they do finally arrive they not only have an increased sick list, but due to being in a small settlement even after resting for months their SL may not reduce significantly?  There is then no real difference between being 'on the march' and in a small town in respect of SL recovery? I've had this happen even with towns of population 5,000 or more which should surely be able to build such buildings without problem ... I certainly don't remember there being anything in the rules which state that you can only build a building in 1 month in a 'large' town (population 10,000+), but elsewhere it may take longer? That would make a mockery of expecting players to state the cost, resources and timescale of building buildings (or raising units), as we are told to do!

If you don't believe me, try ordering this kind of thing yourself - I'm sure the rules are applied equally to all players.

And remember the above is not happening while on campaign in hostile territory, but in ordinary colonial development. It is the perfectly natural response from players who might capture a town, then to avoid upsetting the locals any more, build a granary for their supplies, an army camp (so they don't inflict themselves on the civilian population), a repair yard for their ships, a hospital (so they don't strain medical services), and get to work repairing the walls ... etc, only to find that 'local labour shortages' stop them and their troops waste away because the town is deemed not large enough to support them. Hence the new 'disperse' order gets them to forage in the countryside (the population of which was deemed to be included in the population of the 'town' according to the rules/gazetteer) ... it just becomes meaningless. And I don't see what problem this rule change is designed to solve. It just makes it all even more unpredictable and cumbersome to operate. Unless I've misunderstood the way it is going to work from my own experience.

I appreciate that units in large (10,000+ populations) are more likely to recover SL more quickly than in other towns, and that normally such recovery is possible (provided the natives are not hostile).  The difficulty will not be with large towns, but with smaller towns which are the norm in the colonies and many other areas, which inevitably will impact on campaigning.

If the minimum effective garrison of a town is 5F and 100FC (i.e. 4,500 men) then does this figure only apply to 'large' towns?  If not, then if a town with 1,000 population is sent 5F (with or without the 100FC) as a garrison, then will it be 'supported' or 'uncomfortable', and therefore find its SL increases simply by doing its job?

Hence the need for clarification.  I hope this helps?

As a rule of thumb:

1) I agree with Papa Clement that the max 30 units rule only applies to stand alone fortresses - which if you take say St Elmo on Malta or various Colonial fortifications as an example of a stand alone fortress is actually very generous as such places normally had a garrison of hundreds rather than thousands.

2) Extended fortifications provide protection to horse lines and horses which would other be outside city walls but need extra troops to garrison effectively.

3) Have found many troops are happy to dig/build without loss of morale but expect to be paid extra. Historically troops were also paid extra if taking part in a siege as well. However I suspect that if you start ordering the English Household Cavalry or the Mason du Roi to get anywhere near a hod load of bricks it may not go down very well. Sickness level results have been more mixed - India in particular seems a sod esp when it either rains or is too hot (about 10 months of the year) and I hate to think about possible sickness levels for European troops building in West Africa.

Probably best to treat troops who are building something as if they were on campaign and keep them in supply. Issue of extra tropical and forage uniforms for building work also seems to help.

Not sure if its had any effect on morale or avoiding sickness levels but in G7 when setting up a new Spanish colonial town in North and South America have said that the 2500 recruits and 7500 other people include the wives and family members of garrison force sent out at same time. And have granted troops property such as enclosed farms with farm tools on very long 999 year Royal leases and tiny rents as a Roman style retirement benefit for veterans of Spanish service. On basis that troops more happy building if its for own long term benefit.

4) Have not tried it out but when building on some Island or a long way from home area wonder if it may help to send military engineers or trained builders? Rumelian Army made the Iron Gates on the Danube suitable for shipping by basically throwing most of it Engineers and Civilian specialists from UDP at the problem. Less specialized troops would have probably stood a rather better chance of drowning themselves.

Papa Clement wrote:
Whether this has been widely publicised in the newspapers or not, I have noticed over the last year or so an increasing tendency for the population size of towns to become a factor limiting what can be done there.  Example: I have a small island, population 500-1000, and order an army camp and hospital built there ... next turn I am told that the army camp/hospital will not take 1 month and be operational, but that it will take 4-6 months, due to local labour shortages (i.e. population of the town/island is not large enough to do the work).  This can be hurried along by using any troops present as labourers (with the usual increase in SL and possibly incurring 'low morale' for doing so).  Meanwhile I may have ordered more units to be dispatched to that town and find that when they do finally arrive they not only have an increased sick list, but due to being in a small settlement even after resting for months their SL may not reduce significantly?  There is then no real difference between being 'on the march' and in a small town in respect of SL recovery?  I've had this happen even with towns of population 5,000 or more which should surely be able to build such buildings without problem ... I certainly don't remember there being anything in the rules which state that you can only build a building in 1 month in a 'large' town (population 10,000+), but elsewhere it may take longer?  That would make a mockery of expecting players to state the cost, resources and timescale of building buildings (or raising units), as we are told to do!

If you don't believe me, try ordering this kind of thing yourself - I'm sure the rules are applied equally to all players.

Yea, I tried this with an academy at what was apparently a population 50 'town' a few years ago in G10 and it took months with the help of local tribe/s.

Papa Clement wrote:
Hence the need for clarification.  I hope this helps?

Thanks Papa, I can see where you're coming from but still think the section refers to fortresses in/around towns not towns on their own, but one for asking advisers/academies I think.