Regimental organization (another wreid suggestion)

[huillaume]

This would be mostly a color change, with no real game effect, but, IMHO, it explains some rules that no longer have am explanation:

Rationale: since the military rules changes get rid of the battalions the difference among Captains, Majors and the Lt Col on each Regiment lost most of its meaning ,and the forbidding to purchase a Major (or higher) Rank until one has been there for a time also lost its raison d’être, as no long could they take one third of the Regiment to battle, but only one Company (the same as a Captain).

So, Suggestion:

Change the organization of the Regular Infantry Regiments, so that it becomes:

• 1 Regimental Artillery Battery , under the Lt Col.
• 2 Grenadier Companies, under the Majors
• 6 Line infantry Companies, under the Captains

With those changes (again, with no real effect to the game), each officer Rank has its meaning, and the need for Major and up ranks to need a minimum time in the Regiment to be purchased regains its meaning, as while a Captain can volunteer a line Company, a Major is entrusted with half its elite core, and the Lt Col with its precious Regimental Battery.

And yes, I know this is a little anachronistic, as the distinction of the grenadiers was some decades I n the future, as the creation of the Regimental Batteries, but so are other game features…

Unfortunately, the Cavalry Regiments were more homogeneous (no equivalent to Infantry Grenadier companies in the Cavalry Regiments, AFAIK), so no ideas to justify the different Ranks there…

[Ymbert Montgomery]

There's a difference in terms of modifiers and access to upper ranks!

Happy for other people to pitch in on this, but not sure it adds enough personally.

[Jacques Bougiedure]

As it has no game play effect, I am less inclined to support this change as it is so anachronistic. If we want to differentiate Majors and Lieutenant Colonels, I would vote for reverting to the regimental organization in the original rules.

Cavalry retains the spirit of the original rules even if the names are changed. There are two companies versus three battalions and only two captains versus three field grade officers (major and lieutenant colonels). The cavalry lieutenants are equivalent to the captains in the original rules as they are unable to volunteer their commands.

Infantry regiments are the biggest change from a game play perspective as infantry captains can volunteer their companies to serve at the front, something that was not permitted in the original rules.

[huillaume]

I know this "rules change that do not change the rules" (if I'm allowed the pun) is a strange thing (hence the wreid qualification in the thread name) , so I'll try to explain myself better about why did I suggest it:

Feb 12, 2021 16:56:26 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

There's a difference in terms of modifiers and access to upper ranks!

That's true, but DMs are "out of game" (or metagame) reasons, while I intended to give an "in game" reason.

When we discussed the prohibition to initially buy a Major Rank, the in game reasons were that they had the power to take a good slice of the Regiment to the front, and this power would not be given to anyone who is not trusted, be it by time in the Regiment (so a minimum time to buy it) or by being proved in combat (battlefield promotion).

Whith new rules, as Garret says mostly for Infantry, any Captain has now this power (even a Subaletern may have it, if the Regiment lacks Captains), and the in game reason for those limits to buying Major (or Lt Col) rank disppear. By making their commands the "critical" parts of the Regiment, the in game reasons are recovered (the other option would be to also force anyone some time in the Regiment to buy a Captain rank, but this has too many implications, including having to spend weeks in Regimental duties).

Of course, a Captain may find himself in command of one of those "special" companies, but same happened with original rules, when a captain could find himself commanding a Battalion...

This said, I won't insist, as the game effect is nil, and I'll let others to give their oppinions (or not giving them, if they so want)

[Father William Souris]

300 Pike flanked by 100 muskets (50 each side) is the disposition of a French Battalion, and has been for a generation, though soon the number of Muskets will be increased to 2/3rds of the battalion.

[huillaume]

Feb 12, 2021 23:22:33 GMT Father William Souris said:

300 Pike flanked by 100 muskets (50 each side) is the disposition of a French Battalion, and has been for a generation, though soon the number of Muskets will be increased to 2/3rds of the battalion.

Then do you suggest the companies I called Grenadiers to be the musketeers, and the rest pikes?

This would work too to justify it...

[Jacques Bougiedure]

Feb 12, 2021 23:22:33 GMT Father William Souris said:

300 Pike flanked by 100 muskets (50 each side) is the disposition of a French Battalion, and has been for a generation, though soon the number of Muskets will be increased to 2/3rds of the battalion.

What is the source?

[Father William Souris]

Tactical Evolution in the French Army, 1560-1660 by John A. Lynn