forum.wgcwar.com

Greetings,

Are there any plans to expanding Triumph in the Renaissance period at some point?

Thanks, Mark Burton

MarkBurton wrote: Are there any plans to expanding Triumph in the Renaissance period at some point?

Yes and no, Mark. We were thinking about that possibility 2-3 years ago, but no progress or discussion of the idea has occurred since. It will probably depend upon the amount of energy our major internal proponent of the idea has over the two years that follow finishing the main system release.

Thanks for the info.

That gives me more time before I work on painting my Triumph-RRR armies.

Mark

I too would like to see a renaissance expansion when the time is right.

So would I. I suspect (and hope) that it would be very good indeed.

I would like to see a renaissance expansion of the Triumph! rules since I used to play Italian Wars battles using the Renaissance expansion of a legacy system which worked quite well. Bit by bit my legacy system ancient and medieval armies are being updated according to the Meshwesh army lists, but the landsknecht pike and shotte and Valois gendarmes sit around unused

Maerk

I know others who are interested too (and who would drag me along into it.)

Bill

One of the problems with representing Renaissance infantry formations is the stand system. The Spanish Colunela should be easily distinguishable from a Spanish Early Tercio, a Spanish Later Tercio, a Maurician battalion, or a Swedish Brigade. They should also have distinct advantages and disadvantages in combat.

I'm not sure that Triumph can do that without the concept of rigid static formations.

The computer game Pike and Shot Campaigns does that extremely well.

Pavane wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:13 am

One of the problems with representing Renaissance infantry formations is the stand system. The Spanish Colunela should be easily distinguishable from a Spanish Early Tercio, a Spanish Later Tercio, a Maurician battalion, or a Swedish Brigade. They should also have distinct advantages and disadvantages in combat.

I'm not sure that Triumph can do that without the concept of rigid static formations.

The computer game Pike and Shot Campaigns does that extremely well.

Indeed, Pike and Shot Campaigns from Slitherine (https://www.slitherine.com/game/pike-and-shot-campaigns) is a fantastic pike and shot era PC game. A tabletop representation will never be able to represent all the finesse of the different formations, their characteristics and interactions. A considerable degree of abstraction is most certainly necessary for a renaissance Triumph variant to be playable.

I agree with Pavane, that infantry formations larger than one Triumph stand are key for a renaissance variant. These formations could be represented by combining a small number of single stands, e.g. a column of one pike and one shot stand would gain certain characteristics which only exist for this combined stands. Perhaps, it is what Pavane means by "the concept of rigid static formations"?
Assembling infantry formations in the form of columns and (short) lines also reduces these formation's movement abilities by applying the standard group movement rules; a straightforward way to account for these formation's lack of manoeuvrability.

And: As much as I like the subtlety of Pike and Shot Campaigns on my computer, I love the beauty and the haptics of a real tabletop game.

I already thought this way too, BUT as already mentioned the point is the 4cm Base Width with 15mm Miniatures never give a nice view of the formations that were used. Combining differned bases to one formation means smaller battles. At least if we want to keep the 12 to 15 Elements per side.

Up to now I have no conclusion to fix this.....