AGEOD 30 Years War Announced

[southern_cross_116]

Southern Cross, I agree that Guthrie is very tactical in his approach.  He was a miniature gamer and found the pike and shot warfare very interesting.
The scale of the AGEOD games does fit better to the level of the treatment of Wedgwood and most others.  But being interested in the sweep of the period means so many details are left out.
For example, why salvo firing as developed by Gustavus was an effective tactic.  In Wedgwood, all she says is Gustavus developed "new methods" of infantry fire.
This leaves me wondering what did he do?  Guthrie goes into it in detail.  For me, that is the approach.
Both styles complement each other, but homogenized history leaves me cold.

That's true; I found that I was looking through some books on the (others words I think) military revolution in early modern Europe. This is basically a bit broader than the TYW itself but compares weapons and tactics - I have a few on this -but off the top of my head I think Geoffrey Parker was/is a big proponent of this, and I think Hans Delbrueck's books were regarding this.  I think too that (and granted this one might be more readily found in a library), the 2 volume sorta bio on Gustavus Adolphus also touches this (although I can't say as I have read it yet).

I think (but could be wrong on this) that the 2 Ospreys on Gustavus Adolphus' Armies provided a nice overview as well (Osprey can be hit or miss, but I think Richard Brezinski ... and I apologise if I spelled his name incorrectly) did a pretty nice job on these -in so far as it touches on a lot of areas not just here's some soldiers ... here's how they dressed ... the end. :).

As far as Wilson goes ... MengJiao ... I am a bad example of some one who has read this through - I have picked it up and put it down several times over the past couple of years. I like the maps (although they are sort of out of context to the book -they imply a greater treatment of the battle situation than in fact I think the book covers), although I got the most use out of comparing them with other period maps.

[panzerde]

I'm thinking I may have to fire up Rise of Prussia this weekend...

[MengJiao]

Southern Cross, I agree that Guthrie is very tactical in his approach.  He was a miniature gamer and found the pike and shot warfare very interesting.
The scale of the AGEOD games does fit better to the level of the treatment of Wedgwood and most others.  But being interested in the sweep of the period means so many details are left out.
For example, why salvo firing as developed by Gustavus was an effective tactic.  In Wedgwood, all she says is Gustavus developed "new methods" of infantry fire.
This leaves me wondering what did he do?  Guthrie goes into it in detail.  For me, that is the approach.
Both styles complement each other, but homogenized history leaves me cold.

That's true; I found that I was looking through some books on the (others words I think) military revolution in early modern Europe. This is basically a bit broader than the TYW itself but compares weapons and tactics - I have a few on this -but off the top of my head I think Geoffrey Parker was/is a big proponent of this, and I think Hans Delbrueck's books were regarding this.  I think too that (and granted this one might be more readily found in a library), the 2 volume sorta bio on Gustavus Adolphus also touches this (although I can't say as I have read it yet).

I think (but could be wrong on this) that the 2 Ospreys on Gustavus Adolphus' Armies provided a nice overview as well (Osprey can be hit or miss, but I think Richard Brezinski ... and I apologise if I spelled his name incorrectly) did a pretty nice job on these -in so far as it touches on a lot of areas not just here's some soldiers ... here's how they dressed ... the end. :).

As far as Wilson goes ... MengJiao ... I am a bad example of some one who has read this through - I have picked it up and put it down several times over the past couple of years. I like the maps (although they are sort of out of context to the book -they imply a greater treatment of the battle situation than in fact I think the book covers), although I got the most use out of comparing them with other period maps.

  One of the things Wilson brings out (and something I have some doubt about AGEOD's being interested in) is that not only were a lot of these armies pretty hopeless in terms of training, cohesion, logistics and command control, but things got worse as the war went on and the armies shrank or were absorbed into garrisons or raiding and foraging.  And of course relatively cohesive infantry units tended to be wiped out eventually while those that ran away or were on horses lived to sign up in another army and fight another day.  So if there was a military revolution, the last half of the Thirty-years-war would be a sort of messy gap in that revolution.  I suspect the military revolution was a lot spottier and a lot more linked to the growth of logistics than to any overall forces of change.  Sure some things happened pretty steadily (better muskets, fewer pikes), but other things (decent artillery, cavalry that could make a systematic shock attack) seem to have come and gone and then come and gone again over and over.

[bobarossa]

I had read about Gustavus Adolphus in a great captains type book a number of years ago.  After some searching, I found it was by Theodore Dodge (Gustavus Adolphus: A History of the Art of War)  and is available for free as a PDF from Google!  You can't go wrong with free.  A link to Volume 1 is below; it's all images so it's 12.5 meg.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Gustavus_Adolphus.html?id=uIsDAAAAYAAJ&hl=en

OK, I brought up that book because one of things I learned from it was Gus had one of the first professional armies (1/4 regulars, 3/4 militia).  So not everyone was running around pillaging and burning.  Still, it's a good question how they will implement the savage side of warfare of that period.  Will a general (the player) be required to periodically march to a rich region and pillage so the troops won't desert?  I read somewhere else that 1/3 of the population of the German states was killed or left during this period. 

[besilarius]

There are so many factors in this pan-European War, that the danger is it will be a horrible, uncontrollable mess for a gamer.
Which is exactly what it was for the leaders involved.
For example, in the early part of the war, Count Tilly of the Catholic League developed a very veteran army.
One of it's premier units was the Schmidt Regiment, which pulled the army out of bad situations on at least two major field battles.  Well, the Schmidt Regiment was Protestant.
When things fell apart at Breitenfield, Tilly was wounded and unable to get himself away.  But his old veterans formed a ring around him and beat off all attempts.  We can't be sure, but a significant number of the old sweats must have come from Protestant regiments in the service of the Catholic League.  Their loyalty to "Papa" Tilly overtook their religion.
Gaming this will be a challenge.

[southern_cross_116]

  Still, it's a good question how they will implement the savage side of warfare of that period.  Will a general (the player) be required to periodically march to a rich region and pillage so the troops won't desert?  I read somewhere else that 1/3 of the population of the German states was killed or left during this period.

Sustaining an army in food and fodder, back in that period was critical. You will come across a lot of accounts of armies being forced into one place or another as they had eaten themselves out of the area where they had been in. This was also a prime factor in limiting the size of armies in the period.

You can find a lot of figures about losses -it is a little tough to pin down as records were sort of off and on back then, and a lot of people ended up moving around --- in other words, it is how much of the depopulation was caused by leaving as opposed to dying. . . not to mention pestilence was pretty widespread ... armies back then brought diseases into areas. 

[mikeck]

No worries...AGEOD games have always done a great job with scavenging/foraging, supply and weather conditions. Go at Birth of America 2 and try to keep a large army together. You had better. Have a plan because if you stay in the same area too long, you will starve

[MengJiao]

No worries...AGEOD games have always done a great job with scavenging/foraging, supply and weather conditions. Go at Birth of America 2 and try to keep a large army together. You had better. Have a plan because if you stay in the same area too long, you will starve

  By the late 18th century, armies had learned a lot about how to live off the local population without wrecking it.  The odd thing about the 30-years war is that so many of the armies got worse and worse at living off the local population.  One explanation is just that the war went on for so long and that the armies were not paid very often and were often in a state of semi-mutiny and not really under anyone's control.  Wallenstein's enterprise was like this only on a much larger scale in that nobody quite was sure who had any control over Wallenstein.
By the later part of the war, all of the armies (except for the Dutch, the French and the Spanish who were somewhat peripheral after say 1637) were pretty much the same: mostly scattered in garrisons that had achieved some kind of sustainable balance with the local population and small, cavalry-heavy, very mobile raiding forces that could strike at great distances mostly for political reasons since militarily there was little to gain from fighting the war at all.  I think a fairly normal 18th-century-style approach would work for the first 20 or so years of the war, but the completely degenerate situation from 1637 on might be very hard to simulate since it made very little rational sense.

[dinsdale]

No worries...AGEOD games have always done a great job with scavenging/foraging, supply and weather conditions. Go at Birth of America 2 and try to keep a large army together. You had better. Have a plan because if you stay in the same area too long, you will starve

I thought it worked differently in BoA and Alea Jacta Est; each region creates supply every turn, the supply is used up but the region's ability to create supply is only reduced if the area is looted. I think they would need to increase the circumstances of looting, and the duration of affect. to make the game more accurate.

Campaign maneuvers and seasonal theaters were heavily influenced by the availability of food for the former, and the long term famine and depopulation for the latter.

[besilarius]

One of the interesting scenarios would be the campaign that resulted in the sack of Magdeburg.
Tilly wanted it as a logisitics base, and as a center position to counter Gustavus moves around Saxony.
Being a free city, magdeburg might have opened it's gates rather than take a chance on a siege, but Gustavus "paladin" Falckenburg played on the council's Protestant affiliation to give Gustavus time.
Since Tilly wanted it as a source of food, it was probably not his desire for the devastation and ruin of the city, certainly it wasn't in his best interests.  But he also couldn't let it tie him up while waiting for Gustavus to approach.
No good answers if every storm of a city could end up in the soldiers sacking it into ruin.

[southern_cross_116]

I don't know - at the time of Magdeburg's sacking I am not really that certain that Tilly had much respect for any of his opponents -including Gustavus Adolphus, so I am not really sure that would have been a major consideration at the point that it all happened (or to say, prior to the 1st Battle of Breitenfeld). I guess one could make the argument that Pappenheim had even less (what with the ... GET UP HERE I AM COMMITTED AND CANNOT DISENGAGE .... message that turned out to be ... once Tilly got 'up there' to be an '' oh well, um they aren't here just yet- but since you're here can we fight a pitched battle anyway? type of thing.

There was a significant, 'Teach those people a lessen' thing going on in the war and it was increasingly getting worse after Christian IV was eliminated from the war. I am talking about the Edict of Restitution and the mindset that brought those modifications of Imperial policy about. I think that probably had a lot to do with what happened at Magdeburg (although I am getting real close in my book to covering that part in more depth ... I think I had read something about it in one of my more general books this past week but I forgot exactly which one.).

Edited:  - the book I was reading the section about Magdeburg-  'Furies: War in Europe 1450 - 1700' by Lauro Martines

Edited Part 2: -re Panzerde's post ... it does have me thinking about finally getting Rise of Prussia ... we'll see, as it is not as if I have time to play it right now, so it might stay on the Xmas list.   

[WallysWorld]

New screenshots: http://matrixgames.com/news/1752/New.Screenshots.for.Thirty.Years.War

[panzerde]

Liking that map a great deal. I was cautious about this, but I'm getting much more enthused as the screenshots start to show up.

[MengJiao]

Liking that map a great deal. I was cautious about this, but I'm getting much more enthused as the screenshots start to show up.

  Should be a good game.  Rise of Prussia was great and this should be something like that.  It doesn't look very picky historically.  I'm assuming "Catholic Forces" are either the League or the Imperial Armies.  So I guess the political realm is going to be somewhat "abstract" which seems fine since the political world of the HRE was a mess and that's sorta why there was a war in the first place -- but who wants to get into the complexities of the HRE?  Not me.  Better to have the war.

[Bison]

Man that looks awesome.