Sparta | 24 Jun 2019 7:24 a.m. PST |
I was wondering what you think is the major differences in tactical evolutions and from the Spanish war of succesion to the austrian war of succesion and how they should impact ruledesign. What would you consider the differences between the way the different arms should be led and what advantages they have in relation to each other, in effect what should be the difference between tactical rules for the two periods. |
JimDuncanUK | 24 Jun 2019 8:18 a.m. PST |
Most English speaking gamers use WSS and WAS. Makes more sense when doing searches. |
Sparta | 24 Jun 2019 8:34 a.m. PST |
Thx Jim, just so nobody is confused I mean respectively the Spanish and the Austrian succesion wars. |
22ndFoot | 24 Jun 2019 9:26 a.m. PST |
Sparta, Rather than get into detail here, I'd recommend: The Anatomy of Victory: Battle Tactics 1689-1763, NOSWORTHY, Brent |
JimDuncanUK | 24 Jun 2019 9:27 a.m. PST |
Second that, excellent book. |
mghFond | 24 Jun 2019 1:19 p.m. PST |
|
AussieAndy | 24 Jun 2019 4:48 p.m. PST |
Yep, that's the one to read. Sparta, it was called the War of the Spanish Succession because it started, at least in part, as a war over who would succeed to the Spanish throne. It wasn't just a "Spanish war". Same deal with the WAS, but applied to Austria. |
von Schwartz | 24 Jun 2019 5:11 p.m. PST |
Make some inquiries to TMP's own WSS board, might be able to glean some helpful information there. |
Sparta | 25 Jun 2019 2:55 a.m. PST |
22nd foot. Thank you for the recommendation. I have already read the Anatomy of victory. However apart from the prussian quick fire method and faster maneuvering (the deploieren method was not used here yet?) one could say that you had different firesystems so with platoon or rank fire, making som more effective at firing than others, but there does not seem to be a great change in maneuvre between the two wars. Basically if you took a battle between british, austrian, french forces will it look or perform any different on the tabletop whether it is WSS or WAS. And if it should look different on the tabletop – rules wise – what is trhe salient points, because they seem to elude me. |
Steamingdave2 | 25 Jun 2019 12:13 p.m. PST |
Not an expert on either, but in the WSS there were still some pikes around and orobably some matchlock muskets. I believe the French had some regiments using 6 deep lines in WSS, although some colonels had adopted the shallower British formations. I get the impression that battlefield manouvere was more flexible in WAS (adoption of cadence marching?) Cavalry tactics had probably changed between the two periods. Many infantry had adopted turnbacks by WAS, whereas, these were less common in WSS. |
crogge1757 | 25 Jun 2019 1:49 p.m. PST |
Certainly no major differences. The belligerent armies of the WAS entered the war no wiser as with the last battle of the WSS. The gentlemen of the German Generalstaff Department of Military History—back in the 1890's—even observed a decline strategie-wise and but little progress tactics-wise. Leaving the Prussians out here, all other European armies fought about the same way in the WAS as they did at the end of the WSS. The major change was the gradual multiplying of light guns found in the line of battle. No need to alter rules for the two periods when remaining in the general—as rules generally do. Cheers, Christian crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.com |
Sparta | 27 Jun 2019 1:58 a.m. PST |
Thx Christian. I thought as much. Found the link below which focus on SYW versus WSS. It seems that the main diffenrences is the introduction of cadenced marching and iron ramrods. However, Cadenced marching seems to come to the french around 1750 I am not quite sure about the british, austrian, spanish and piemontese. Cadenced marching vastly increases the speed of deployment and formations changes. hmwrs.com/sywmarlb.htm |