What kind of unit types would you see in an early modern battlefield? Think 1500's era.
I'm working on a game and I'm wanting to distinguish between say halberdiers and firearm infantry but I'm not looking for the level of detail of german vs english halberdiers.
Early modern warfare thread.
>>46654797
Well as far as I know you had infantry using polearma together with musketeers who shot in barrages.
Later everything got more integrated leading to pike and shot and after that to bayonetted riflemen.
>>46654797
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio
>>46654797
Pikemen is the new best thing around that era with people who use firearms (the type of firearms is changeing through the century)
You still have a lot of cavalry but as pikemen became more and more widespread they lose their importance (but never disappear)
You also have swordsmen/halberdiers and such, they are basically what protecting the banners/flanks etc.
And you have artillery, pretty important stuff.
This is the very basics but of course the precise setup was different in every country.
Also there were those guys who dug the tunnels in sieges, always forget what they were called, they were basically the lowest of the low in importance, nobody gave a fuck about them.
And there were the camp followers, they weren't a fighting force they just followed the armies for various reasons (craftsmen, whores, sometimes "family")
>>46655452
I'm thinking with it, having light and heavy infantry that are subdivided into pike and shot, halberdiers, pikemen, musketeers, swordsmen and bowmen for the less advanced nations. Pike and shot would be a more all around mario kind of unit compared to other kinds.
And have heavy and light cavalry subdivided into lancers, pistoliers and dragoons. Though I think musket cavalry might be a bit too advanced and it seems that pistol cavalry was more a bandit tactic than something that saw battlefield use at the time.
As far as light and heavy units go, both are wearing some kinds of armor but heavy armor is starting to become outdated in the period.
For siege weaponry, I have mortars, culverins and grand culverins. I'm thinking that they can be designed as attachments to other types of units.
I'm looking to hit the broad highlights from this period of warfare, more verisimilitude than strict accuracy.
Good point with sappers, I hadn't thought about them.
>>46655753
idk, is there anything I'm really missing with that broad list of unit types? As far as differences in skill and training, I have that as a separate system so I don't need to worry about statting up an elite unit as different from a levy or mercenary group.
>>46655753
>Though I think musket cavalry might be a bit too advanced and it seems that pistol cavalry was more a bandit tactic than something that saw battlefield use at the time.
says who? it was a pretty much working tactic that was used on the battlefield to the point that some cavalryman had more than two pistols at them, went close to the formation of pikemen, shot with all of their pistols, retreated, reloaded, repeat.
> but heavy armor is starting to become outdated in the period.
depends on what we call heavy armor. Full armor is still happens at early 16th but mostly around cavalries. Footmen wore thre quarters at most as a rule of thumb (exceptions happen, and siege warfare always differs) But half plate or less was the norm
But for cavalry they went fucking heavy on the breastplate so it could stop pistols and muskets.
Also 1500 is not early modern battlefield. It's high renaissance.
Also here is a little something that might be intersting for you just to get a general feeling of war
>>46655753
oh yeah also, bowmen was more crossbowmen in the 16th century. Simple bowmen in the battlefield was technically extinct by that time, it was used for hunting sometimes but that's all.
And even crossbowmen were on the decline as in the 16th century guns started to get big and at mid 16th it was pretty normal if a civilian had firearms.
and don't forget that during 16th century there are still no regular armies. Mercenaries live their golden age at early and mid 16th, during late 16th they start to decline for various reasons and very late 16th and early 17th where we can start to talk about standardized armies.
>>46656035
I'm thinking of light armor as a curaiss, helmet, bits of other assorted protection.
One of the themes of the setting is that it's a sort of transition between feudal and modern states, early capitalism is beginning
, etc.
Ah cool, thanks for the book.
I'm thinking with the armies, levy units are a thing that are pretty cheap but they're limited in how many a player can raise and lose morale every month they're away from the field and nowhere close to professional skill.
I'm thinking as well, mercenaries are the only real way to have an army of significant size but are prohibitively expensive to use as a standing army.
The way mercenaries are paid would be they get an upfront pay and a wage pay that can get paid as a bonus at the end of a campaign. Any plunder the mercenaries are allowed to take though, reduces the bonus pay a player owes them at the end of a campaign. It's not exactly how mercs were paid from what I understand but it should approximate it while being more mechanically interesting.
That way plundering reduces the wealth of a town or city, increases resistance but it gives wealth. The players though would have a decision as to if they should take plunder themselves or pay their mercs with it.
>>46656370
>It's not exactly how mercs were paid from what I understand but it should approximate it while being more mechanically interesting.
well, historically speaking mercenaries weren't paid. And then "accidents" like the sacking of Rome happened because of this lack of payment.
Anyway the whole "how armies work" thing is explained in the book way better than how I can do it.
Read it, it's very educational, the guy is a good historian has solid sources on everything that you can follow up if REALLY interested, etc. And the book is kept in an easy to read format, not overly technical. Just to get the general feel of how things worked back then over the several examples
