ETE LTE - sideways and oblique moves

As far as I can tell there is no restriction on Tercios using sideways, oblique or rear movement.

It does seem right to me to have these huge, and unwieldy, formations being able to maneuver so easily.

I would have thought that sideways and oblique movement would/should NOT be permitted. Rear movement possibly OK.

Have only used Tercios in one game so far. If I had not been able to move then obliquely I would never have been able to line up an attack.

I think oblique movement (at least) was used and although slow I also think they were not as unwieldy as they might appear. Considering what the musketeers went through to load and give fire, an oblique move was likely less difficult.

Since the unit can not be disordered to perform an oblique, the oblique must be the last move and Tercios are 1S, they are already fairly ponderous to use in a game.

Yes I think the balance is about right at the moment

A couple more games down and I think that there is a problem in this area (and the balance is not right).

Tercios were of 1000-3000 men
P&M 500-600

Oblique movement required marching at the Cadence - which was not introduced until 1720+ or so, and was a differentiating factor in mobility during the SYW where it was not std drill across all nations (British and Prussian were drilled).

So its questionable that in the period covered by Baroque that Oblique movement should be allowed at all.

In Baroque Tercios are the most maneuverable infantry. They can move
- Sideways/Oblique
- Rear
- perform 90degree turns
- perform about face

Other infantry cannot make a 90degree turn.


A P&M, WB, S or T unit takes 3 moves to wheel 90degrees, a Tercio 1 activation.


Perhaps the guys @ D&P can pass on some thoughts on the movement model.

Utterly different type of 'oblique' we're not talking about the formation marching in lockstep at an angle. We're talking about a large unwieldy formation moving from point A to point B

And oblique movement or advance en echelon does not require cadence. Cadence improves the speed of manoeuvre that's all. Units had obliqued and advanced en echelon for millennia before the SYW

They are also the slowest most lethargic beasts - any movement is their last movement. Calling them the most manoeuvrable unit is, frankly, laughable!

Other infantry get more moves per activation. And they are also slow unwieldy blocks but they aren't as adept at changing face - because they are a linear block.

A tercio is a square, with sleeves at all corners, if it needs to change face it can do so much more easily than a linear block. That was essentially it's design purpose.

At the end of the day if you deny it the capacity to make these moves then the tercio is utterly useless as you turn them into static blocks that will just be sidestepped.

Now if you asked me if I thought 1S was the right movement value, I'd be tempted to say no - they should possibly be 1 movement of 1 BW period, no possibility of multiple moves .

Zippee,

I would agree and disagree with various of your statement.

If "We're talking about a large unwieldy formation moving from point A to point B" then disruption either should occur or be tested for.

In Baroque, Tercios can move as often as other troops - as 'S' they only have a higher chance of failure (17%) and become disordered on second and subsequent moves. They have an equal chance of rallying (from disorder) as other troops.

I am less certain about Tercios being "square" and/or symmetric. Most descriptions highlight a large central pike formation, with flanking shot and hvy weapon troops plus the shot wings/corners. Also that Tercios contained a large number of sub-units (could have been 30+). These sub-units gave it the capacity to react and defend flank/rear attacks. Commanding and coordinating all those sub-units to maneuver would be a major task.

Moving forward, "follow the leader" (including a wheel) would have been easier. A large unwieldy formation - as you said - or lethargic beast.


I would agree that perhaps 1S is not the best description. I would agree on no multiple moves but in addition I would either force disruption on other than a straight or wheel, or force a test.


paul

I think the problem is that we have to ensure that the formation still remains playable on the wargames table.
Having the unit as effectively unmoveable other than just straight forward would basically reduce it to being useless spectators as the opposing army casually concentrated on destroying the rest of the army.
Historically this never seems to have been a problem, tercios lasted about a century during which they were successful.
One problem is probably that wargamers have far more control than their historical counterparts, so it's easier to concentrate etc.
Another point could be that our battlefields are too 'wide' in proportion to the number of troops we have. (This is a bit more complicated because we have armies which would historically have fought on very wide frontages and depend on outflanking but these are rarely the armies that tercios fought against)
If you look at frontages the rules suggest

SCALE 500/700 p.ts 800/1000 p.ts
20 - 25/28mm 180x120cm 240x180cm
5 – 10 - 15mm 120x90cm 180x120cm

So for your standard 15mm battle it should take place of a four foot frontage.Even the biggest games should only have a six foot frontage.

Now I'm as guilty as anybody because we do like bigger tables with more room for movement. Also they're minimum measurements because there are cavalry armies out there which will need more room.
But frankly because we use tables that are generally too big then we have to compensate slightly by making some troops slightly more manoeuvreable than they perhaps should be.

If we restricted tables strictly to four feet of frontage for 700 point games in 15mm I think you'd see Spanish players perfectly happy to have tercios which merely moved forward, but when we have games where people use much larger frontages then I think we've got to give some troops the ability to manoeuvre

Jim

All my Baroque games are 600-700 points on a 4x3 table (15mm). It works great. Enough flank to worry about, defend/protect, but no 'sweeping' moves.

So for us maneuver is not about covering a big table but in the tactical adjustments. I can see why if you play on a big table with limited forces then would struggle with relatively maneuverable Tercios.