Ben we need to get you a designers badge for here.

Again, I just think it's great when good wargame designers (and publishers) devote attention and resources to new or, at the best, rarely gamed military campaigns ... the 17th century is one of the last great under-explored areas of tactical wargaming. And such an interesting challenge, given the broad variety of the combat units involved.

Good question!

First off there was four echelons of command from lowest to highest: Company, Regiment, Wing and Army. When deployed on the battlefield the Companies rarely acted alone, they were part of a battlefield formation called a squadron for cavalry and a battalion for infantry. A regiment could form one or two squadrons/battalions or if too small could be brigaded with other small regiments to form a single squadron/battalion.

The Captains and Colonels controlled the actions of the squadrons and battalions and in the game these units are the maneuver elements. Their actions are covered in the actions those units take, and their limitations. There was a good deal of cohesion at the regimental level and it was not uncommon for one or two regiments to keep soldiering on after all others had broken. Because of this there is no Army Rout Levels like some other games.

The next two echelons of command are the Wing and Army command, these are represented with leader counters. Each is treated differently. A Wing Commander (WC) controls the squadrons and/or battalions assigned to his wing. This is done through one of four orders (Charge, Make Ready, Receive Charge and Rally). An army normally has 3 or 4 wings. Communicating these commands was via trumpet and drum signals or personal request by the WC to a Colonel. Thus changing orders can be difficult. Each order type has a different set of limitations

The Army Commander (AC) functions in a different role. The WCs maneuver the elements but the AC can attempt to influence them to change their order, or keep going. The AC may also rally units that the WC is too busy to worry about. This function was very useful in sustaining a difficult attack or stiffening a defense.

A good deal of how the Musket & Pike Battles Series works deals with how Wings and Command operate. I tried to incorporate as much as possible from the primary source documents on how a battle was fought and how the commanders functioned.

Was not battlefield desertion by largely mercenary forces also an issue that generals had to face during this time. I cannot remember if that was specific to any of the battles covered in these games. I believe at Breitenfeld the Saxons basically fled the field en masse but that was (again if I remember correctly) mostly a national force and not a mercenary one. Are there any rules in the games for bribing Mansfeld-esque mercenary commanders to neutralize them? Just sort of wondering out loud.

In the mid to later war the mercenary units were long term service unit for the most part and were not particularly vulnerable to conversion. The biggest defection was in 1635 when Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar took his corps from Swedish to French service, thought the Sedes and French were on the same side ostensibly it did create a good bit of acrimony. Many attempted to return to Swedish service at the end of the war, but very few made it.

The Saxons at Breitenfeld were very green, having been raised for the most part with 60 days of the battle. The latest scholarship indicates that they did as well as could be expected and Gustav Adolf was complimentary of their performance. They played a very important role in forcing Tilly to deploy on a grand frontage that spread him thin. They also neutralized Gen Fuerstenburg on Tilly's right, those regiments involved in putting the Saxons to flight never rallies and reorganized to help Tilly deal with the Swedes.