Bayonets - later period (LoA etc)

Later armies start to have Bayonet armed infantry, some still have limited Pike but this was phased out.

I was wondering how to incorporate Bayonet armed infantry in Baroque.

1. Would they provide a MM (say +1)
2. Would they cancel impetus bonus of mounted

In this period I don't see Bayonet as providing additional Impetus Bonus, I'm not sure that a bayonet charge was drilled. [but I could be wrong]

Lorenzo has a WSS supplement in the works, I suspect this will be addressed there.

For LOA it may be more a case of cancelling any further fire opportunities for an enhanced pseudo pike effect?

I don't believe there will be any melee bonus. The only effect would be reduction or removal of the SM penalty as every soldier becomes musket armed.

We already have all musket units as T units but they are vulnerable to cavalry as they have no bayonets.

It's plausible that by comparison bayonet armed muskets should be better in melee particularly against cavalry.

Then again it may be below the required granularity.

Zippee wrote:Lorenzo has a WSS supplement in the works, I suspect this will be addressed there.

For LOA it may be more a case of cancelling any further fire opportunities for an enhanced pseudo pike effect?

I would not want to see this type of model. I certainly use the rules to represent large bodies and not small groups so having to worry about whether your bayonets are in or out is too much detail.

paulbgau wrote:

I would not want to see this type of model. I certainly use the rules to represent large bodies and not small groups so having to worry about whether your bayonets are in or out is too much detail.

I agree. Whether the bayonets are on or not is not the army commander's job. A bad dice roll in melee means they were not ready.

I only mention it because for plug bayonets it's a once done deal, no return to shooting. So either those units are left vulnerable assuming they rely on firepower and we ignore the plug as likely useless or we allow them the same benefits as a socket bayonet.

I don't see what the size of unit is has to do with that - either you cancel all future firepower or not. Or you ignore it completely which is certainly simpler. Depends on whether you think the evolution of the bayonet is worth the modelling - I have my doubts.

Plug bayonets from around 1660
Socket bayonets from around 1700

Plug bayonets seem to have been used for charging and protection when threatened by mounted.I would think that once fitted they could be removed.

Pikes were not abandoned (at least by German and English) until the socket/ring bayonet was introduced.

I would agree that plug and socket/ring should have some differentiation.

Socket/ring - no mounted impetus, but any combat bonus ?

Plug - maybe as a charge response they could either shoot or fix bayonet. Combat bonus ? Or just increase their Impetus Bonus ?
For the units that still had pike, the mounted impetus is already there.

My understanding has always been that the problem with plugs was that they couldn't be removed - at least not easily (read on the field - they must have been removed at some point otherwise it would be a very expensive business!).

Cancelling mounted impetus bonus would be the only possible effect, but does a 4 foot musket with a pointy bit on the end really equal and 18' pike?

Impetus usually does not concert itself with the type of melee weapon, so whether the musketeers had a bayonet, or a sword or hatchet or clubbed musket - its all the same.

Except cancelling impetus is exactly what spears do in Impetus - and whilst a 5' musket with a 2' dagger on the end may not be a an 18' pike it's certainly a spear.

Impetus does care about different melee (not so much hand) weapons, Baroque doesn't because generally they are secondary to firepower.

I agree about swords, hangers, axes, clubbed but that's missing the point, the evolution of the bayonet was a BIG thing, it allowed the next major leap in tactical development and is the significant (well loss of the match too) difference between TYW and WSS - the LOA just happens to sit right between on the development arc.

From my point of view, the bayonet at the time of LoA is only used to defend against attacks of the cavalry. For rare melee, normalmete assaults gaps, strengths, etc., the sword was used until well into the eighteenth century. It was not normal attack enemy infantry with fixed bayonets, ranged combat was preferred by shooting firearms.

This was discussed while play testing Baroque. Our group decided that bayonets didn't play a big enough role in our period to warrant additional rules. Think Lorenzo came to the same conclusion ? ...well it wasn't pursued any further and never came up again.
Plug bayonet was rapidly superseded by the socket for good reason ...wasn't the greatest bit of kit.

bayonets could reduce but not nullify the impetus bonus of mounted. Also a Unit fully armed with musket can benefit of a better defensive fire that is something very close to an impact phase.

One of the reason of working on betas and waiting for the official lists is to have time to better model things like bayonets that could be added as a special.

Plug could be a reaction or something automatic provide you cannot make defensive fire.

Socket can reduce to 1 the Impetus.

thinking about it, a bayonet of any type must be a more reliable way of stopping cavalry than defensive fire, or nobody would have bothered with the bayonet.

Whilst I agree that troops with plug bayonet don't shoot again that battle, I'd also say that the plug bayonet is fixed as the cavalry charge. It's an automatic thing, if the infantry don't run away, they fix bayonets. The reason for this is simple. If the player had to organise the fixing of plug bayonets and it had to be done before the cavalry charged all that would happen was some bright boy would have his cavalry riding along the enemy army threatening each musket armed unit in turn until they fitted bayonets. At which point he'd ignore them and go and threaten another one because he'd permanently nullified their firepower already

Jim

I'd go as far as to say that any musketeers (plug or not) that have fought in a melee are done firing that day. This is already modeled to some extent in the loss of vbu and exhaustion, however.

stecal wrote:I'd go as far as to say that any musketeers (plug or not) that have fought in a melee are done firing that day.  This is already modeled to some extent in the loss of vbu and exhaustion, however.

I think the vbu system does model exhaustion etc pretty well, but yes, you're right

stecal wrote:I'd go as far as to say that any musketeers (plug or not) that have fought in a melee are done firing that day.  This is already modeled to some extent in the loss of vbu and exhaustion, however.

Whilst I take the essence of your point, that is not how the rules work. Shooters that have their VBU reduced can still shoot (albeit at reduced value). Inserting a plug into your musket, changes the unit's status, regardless of levels of exhaustion, into a non-shooter.

Is that important enough to model? If so;

Can it be modelled without opening the path for abuse?

Can it be modelled without causing unnecessary complication?

I like less complexity and bookkeeping.

For the Plug bayonet period, pikemen where still deployed. So unless Plug bayonets get a MM bonus then why bother, I would also not want to track whether they were deployed or not. I am not sufficiently read to argue whether or not fitting the plug bayonet stopped shooting for the day. Their impact maybe such that they should just be ignored.

For Socket bayonets I quite like Lorenzo's suggestion of reducing Impetus to 1 as they weren't as good as a pike but when combined with increased firepower were a match for mounted. Socket bayonets should probably have an MM bonus to reflect the emerging dominance on the battlefield.

I've always considered the bayonet as more a moral boosting item. After the decline of the pike it was an easy 'add on' which everyone adopted wasn't anything particularly special. Firepower was quickly becoming what it was all about for sure....hand to hand a thing of the past.

Tarty wrote:I've always considered the bayonet as more a moral boosting item. After the decline of the pike it was an easy 'add on' which everyone adopted wasn't anything particularly special. Firepower was quickly becoming what it was all about for sure....hand to hand a thing of the past.

I understand that Pike was finally removed as a result of the socket bayonet. Maybe it was due to the morale effect and that the lads would stay and shoot rather than holding a long pig sticker.

I think the removal of pike is as much to do with breaking tradition as anything - NCOs are still equipped with similar a hundred years later - pure tradition.

It's a combination of change to firelock and development of volley fire and introduction of bayonet. The next stage will be the thinning of the line.

It may seem very obvious to us with hindsight that a 2-3 deep line of bayonets can hold against cavalry (flanks secured) but it would be a brave colonel who experimented in the field with his regiment. Imagine the ridicule as he explained the rout as being due to dismissing his pike as he thought the muskets could hold. . .