"French and Iroquoia Wars?" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Old School Wargaming Message Board Back to the 18th Century ImagiNations Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral 18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench ArticleEntry #1 in Scale Creep's Scavengers Design Contest - a complete 18th Century Fantasy game you can play on your refrigerator.
Featured Profile ArticlePoker chips are back at the dollar store!
Current Poll
|
OSchmidt | 17 Feb 2015 10:45 a.m. PST |
Dear list On my Yahoo Group Society of Daisy we were noodling around with something. In my game "Ogabas" (OH GOD! ANYTHING BUT A SIX) there is an army make up which is the base for all Imagi-Nations on which various units can be added for flavor. This base has five line infantry units, two elite units (light or Grenadier, your choice) four heavy, four light cavalry regiments, one dragoon regiment, two heavy and two light guns, five wagons, and a few small detachments. In thinking about what this represents I come up with. Let's consider a normal "OGABAS" army and what it represents. There are 7 infantry regiments, which represent, assuming we have something larger than the smallish English establishment of 1,000 to a regiment, so let's place them at 2,000 a regiment. That's 14,000 men represented. There are four heavy and four light cavalry regiments and a regiment of dragoons, which at about 900 men for the regiment is 8,100 men. So we're up to 22,000 Add on about 2,000 artillerists and about 6,000 all other hangers on from generals, staffs, quartermasters, wagoneers etc, and you have about 30,000 men. That's a considerable army even in the 18th century. Add on a brigade representing about 9,000 men more and you have a full army Now… 30,000 men is a lot of men and a lot of power, and for example from the North American Indians, even at their wildest dreams the Five Nations, the largest and most organized Indian group, could barely scrape together 1,000 braves. Even in the wilds of ambush 1,000 braves is NOT going to do more than inconvenience 30,000 men and Braddock's column was a one-time-only event. After the first shock they learned. But the point is that those 30,000 men can really only be matched by about 30,000 men, so let us take the huge leap of faith and assume that our little Nationa of Iroquoia has the population and culture and society to field 30,000 braves (ala Ogabas,) then what would the regiments and bands within this 30,000 men be. It take not only a lot more supplies to keep them in the field AND a lot more discipline and order. In fact you would have to get all of this together so that in the end the 30,000 Iroquois would have to fight pretty much like, and be organized like, the 30,000 Europeans across the field, or Turks, or Amazons, or Panda bears…. So you could match two armies this way and make up the back story. Might be interesting to see ranks of Indians massign fire, having horse cavalry, artillery etc. This would be much like the Turks where the OGABAS pattern is used. There are five regiments of ordinary scrum infantry, two regiments of Elite (Jannisaries or Bashi Bazooks, your choice, two light two heavy guns, and four regiments of Spahi's two of light cavalry, one of horse archers etc etc etc. All of them yield excellent bases for battles, assure equity, and you don't have to do all sorts of cumbersome things in the rules. Now as an aside, when you figure in this, you realize that as romantic an attachment we can form to the Indians, and marvel at their woodland expertise, simply put, the whole armed might of the Five Nations against an army of 30,000 men is going to be like fighting a blizzard with a box of matches. At this point you all should realize just how hopeless the Indian side was in the colonial period once the colonies got going.
The point is, the fun however comes in the Imagi-Nation Ecumene with IMAGINING IF THE INDIANS could stand up with equal numbers to a European army which means they would have to mimic the Europeans to a great extent. Obviously assuming they could have the society to raise 30,000 warriors makes imaging how they would get horses and artillery childs play. Even more problematic is the idea of a Musket period Amazon Army. Again assuming 30,000 female warriors and how you get that impressive figure. But the problem here is that the Amazons must use their child-bearing citizens whereas the Europeans or standard army uses simply superfluous males. The problem then with birth rate for replacement means that even with parthenogenesis population must have needs be in a different organization. Neither impossible or unlikely but something that has to be thought on. But remember, we really don't care about all that folderol in Imagi-Nations, we just want to create the army and have fun with it and history be damned. Otto
|
OSchmidt | 17 Feb 2015 11:08 a.m. PST |
Another point is that since in an OGABAS army equals=equals=equals. You can assure equity across armies by totaling up the factors. For example Each unit is rated by it's movement factor, it's charge value, it's To Stand value, it's rally factor, it's distance it can fire in measures (1 or 2) and its fire factor. Each of these categories can be totaled and redistributed among the units to create what you wish for unit values. Thus if you wanted more cavalry you could move the values around etc., and load up the charge values or "to stand" values, remembering always you cannot make them more than 5, (so that six is always a fail) and hence make different units. |
zippyfusenet | 17 Feb 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
Otto…you're fiddling with your imaginations again, and I'm only responding because I strike at any topic with 'Iroquois' in it. You're not talking about historic Iroquoia vs. New France. Not at all. Gov. Denonville couldn't lead anything like 30,000 men into Iroquoia. Even when his King sent him a full regiment of soldiers, he could barely march 1,000 regulars and militia from his sickly little colony across the howling wilderness to the Iroquois towns. And those 1,000 were far too much for the League. By the time the colonists were organized enough to move a real army with artillery to attack the fort at Niagara, resistance was futile for the Iroquois League. The only time when North American natives had enough organized population to contend with European colonists was in the proto-historic, at first contact with the Spaniards, Mississippians vs. Conquistadors. Actually, that period interests me quite a bit, I've been building forces for the battle of Mabila for a long time. In spite of the resistance mounted by Apalachee, Coosa and others, De Soto cut a bloody swath through the Mississippian South – nothing could stop him or turn him aside. But it would be interesting to muster the forces of a major paramount chiefdom and try. |
OSchmidt | 17 Feb 2015 12:39 p.m. PST |
Ummm… It's Imagi-nations Zippy. Of course it's not real history. I understand all that you say, but that's history. I understand everything you say. The collision of the Iroquois with New France or the Colonies was devastating-- and tragic, and all that. I also have read Jarred Diamond's "The arrow of Disease" and so forth. But that is all in the history. Yes, we know the history, we do obeisance to it, and then we pack it up in the bookshelf and get out the toy soldiers we like to play with. Now come on, wouldn't you LOVE to see over 450 Iroquois on the table top (which is what of my Imagi-Nations armies fields) as an army facing the Europeans on an equal basis. Some with fragments of European equipment, armor, guns etc. For me the attraction would be the fun of converting the figures into warriors and units, flags, colors, etc. I agree it's all fantasy but so what? |
OSchmidt | 17 Feb 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Dear Zippy It's the same idea as I do with my Empire of Ikea which is a Turkish style army. The units of the army are almost EXACTLY identical to the European army it fights. As I said, the regular Turkish infantry is the same as Line infantry, the elites in the European Army are Janissaries or Bashi-Bazooks in the Turkish, light and heavy are the same in both except the Turks all have fire power as horse archers with their fire values filched from some of the line and elites, artillery is light and heavy guns etc. So the two have almost identical units. Thus again, the theory of the above is that the toy soldiers are just decorative abstractions of a real unit and the game values are what counts. So, if one was to do "Iroquia" and allow it the same, it could be fit into the same. It's like a game I hypothesized to think about it. Russians versus Khanate of the Golden Horde. One could use MOreschauser or other such system, and where Moreschauser has "Heavy Cavalry" the Golden Horde could have horse archers, and the Russians T-34 tanks. So long as the "stats" the combat values of both were identical, you could swap tokens as you wished. The Khanate infantry could be light archer infantry, the Russians, well regular WWII Russians. The only thing that counts in the game is the arithmetic values etc, the tokens on the table top are just tokens. Imagine a chess set the same way, the pawns for the Russians are Russian Soldiers, the pawns for the Golden Horde, light archers. Rooks can be horse archers for the Khan, T34's for the Russians, Knights can be light horse for the Khanate, BT light tanks for the Russians. Bishops can be field guns for the Russians, Catapults for the Khanate.
The game on the chess board would work perfectly well, as would the tame on the table top. Unless…. you're going to say that the form and character of the token has some mystical and intrinsic connection with the prototypical real thing? That a T34 model is more than just a game piece, or a Mongol Horse archer the same? By the way, my gaming buddy George, who is an iron-worker, once played a war game with another iron worker on a steel plate 50 floors up with "miniatures" or "tokens" made of various sizes and combination of bolts and nuts for infantry, artillery, and guns. They are what you say they are. |
OSchmidt | 17 Feb 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Dear Zippy It's the same idea as I do with my Empire of Ikea which is a Turkish style army. The units of the army are almost EXACTLY identical to the European army it fights. As I said, the regular Turkish infantry is the same as Line infantry, the elites in the European Army are Janissaries or Bashi-Bazooks in the Turkish, light and heavy are the same in both except the Turks all have fire power as horse archers with their fire values filched from some of the line and elites, artillery is light and heavy guns etc. So the two have almost identical units. Thus again, the theory of the above is that the toy soldiers are just decorative abstractions of a real unit and the game values are what counts. So, if one was to do "Iroquia" and allow it the same, it could be fit into the same. It's like a game I hypothesized to think about it. Russians versus Khanate of the Golden Horde. One could use MOreschauser or other such system, and where Moreschauser has "Heavy Cavalry" the Golden Horde could have horse archers, and the Russians T-34 tanks. So long as the "stats" the combat values of both were identical, you could swap tokens as you wished. The Khanate infantry could be light archer infantry, the Russians, well regular WWII Russians. The only thing that counts in the game is the arithmetic values etc, the tokens on the table top are just tokens. Imagine a chess set the same way, the pawns for the Russians are Russian Soldiers, the pawns for the Golden Horde, light archers. Rooks can be horse archers for the Khan, T34's for the Russians, Knights can be light horse for the Khanate, BT light tanks for the Russians. Bishops can be field guns for the Russians, Catapults for the Khanate.
The game on the chess board would work perfectly well, as would the tame on the table top. Unless…. you're going to say that the form and character of the token has some mystical and intrinsic connection with the prototypical real thing? That a T34 model is more than just a game piece, or a Mongol Horse archer the same? By the way, my gaming buddy George, who is an iron-worker, once played a war game with another iron worker on a steel plate 50 floors up with "miniatures" or "tokens" made of various sizes and combination of bolts and nuts for infantry, artillery, and guns. They are what you say they are. |
silver fox | 17 Feb 2015 4:12 p.m. PST |
It doesn't take a great leap of imagination (Forgive the pun)for this to work. It has been estimated that most Celtic tribes in pre-Roman Britain could field armies of this size and the Zulu armies of Shaka could be as large. Just needs the leader and/or that slight advancement in culture. As always… Have fun!! |
Rudysnelson | 19 Feb 2015 4:16 p.m. PST |
The idea of a 30,000 man expedition into the North American wilderness is dull of hazards that would reduce the troop count considerably. The French were unable to subdue the much smaller Chickasaw nation after almost 50 years of trying. And they attacked with superior numbers of Great lakes warriors, Arkansas tribes and Choctaw warriors. These did not help. The idea that they could conquer the Iroquois nation is impossible. The Sullivan campaign was successful against the Cherokee but they did not c0nquer them, nor did the pre AmRev attack against the Cherokee. If you are talking about an imaginary nation, then use the Creek/Muskogee Confederation that was formed in the current Southeast United States and fought mainly the Spanish is Florida. Though they were a blocking force for a decade to the United States as well. An imaginary Iroquois nation would include the Five nation but also the related Cherokee and Neutral tribes in the Ohio Valley as well. Not to mention the Iroquois in Canada as well. A large formidable foe if based on the Muskogee model. The Muskogee had a flag, British recognition and even a two ship navy. |
OSchmidt | 20 Feb 2015 6:31 a.m. PST |
Doesn't seem too covert- the original thread clearly specified Imagi-nation land. Who cares about reality. |
Rudysnelson | 21 Feb 2015 11:49 a.m. PST |
I do think the Susquehanna tribes were Iroquois too. |
spontoon | 21 Feb 2015 12:23 p.m. PST |
Iroquoia wouldn't need to field 30,000 men to stand up to 30,000 men I the Colonies. They'd just need to field enough to defeat, or seriously incommode; the troops the Colonies could field at one point. Given the supply and communications of the era; that would only be a fraction of 30,000. So, waging a guerilla war against outposts and columns would be quite feasible with say, 3,000 warriors. |
PaulCollins | 08 Mar 2015 1:00 p.m. PST |
You could have something very much like the British on the NWF. Lots of skirmishing with some larger set piece battles. Very colorful and deadly. |
|