|
Post by natholeon on Mar 30, 2018 20:49:50 GMT
That mixed pike and shot unit was something I looked at years ago, and actually did with my 10mm figures for the 9 years war. This time around I was going to look at the same but with 15mm based on the 60mm bases, 12 figures a base. I changed my mind because I wanted to try and stick with 40mm elements and the intention is to play with 24-36 bases a side. I think 2 pike and shot on a single 40mm base would not be particularly aesthetically pleasing, but I hadn't considered using a double based element. If such a beast were added, I'm thinking it would be classified as 8 shot, consisting of a front rank of shot and rear rank of pike. Or shot on the sides with 4 pike in the centre. It would act as shot with the additional +1 in combat of a double element. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by edonaldson on Mar 30, 2018 21:36:04 GMT
I agree Nathan - just what I was thinking. Seperate elements of Pike and Shot don't work well in a 12 element army IMO. And if folks didn't want to rebase they could always just put an element of Pike behind an element of Shot and play it as a single element.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Mar 30, 2018 23:52:34 GMT
Sorry, my last post was a bit incoherent. What I meant to hint at is that throughout the pike and shot period there is an increase in the number of shot relative to the number of pike. By 1657 the Danish government is no longer willing to pay colonels for having pike in their regiments. In the ECW I suspect that pikes were still useful for protecting the shot from horse. But Stuart Reid's brief monograph on infantry tactics in the ECW is titled 'Gunpowder Triumphant.'
Theoretical configurations of pike and shot units also may not reflect tactical reality. The Swedish shot detached to support Gustavus' pistols at Breitenfeld came from the pike and shot regiments, and might well have reduced the proportion of shot to pike from 2:1 to the 1:1 of Tilly's Tercios. Scottish volley fire and charge may have been much more important than the relative make up of the units involved in determining the outcome of the battle.( And the Swedish opinion of their horse is that they were not as good as the Imperial cavalry, despite what the DBR rules say.) ECW shot were sometimes sent into combat without any pike. The pike were pulled off and kept separate as a reserve.
How a Swiss pike kiel would perform against the thinner less pike and more shot heavy units of the 30 years war is very speculative. I suspect there would have been a lot of running shot, and a bunch of dead TYW pikemen. But would the Swiss have been able to mount a decisive pursuit? If the terrain was more closed there is evidence from earlier in the period that pike and shot could defeat a frontal assault by a pike block. But not in open ground, as was tried in the French Wars of Religion.
And then somehow we have to work in light lancer armies. These were successful against Gustavus, and against the Portuguese in Spain. But how do we balance this with only '12' elements a side?
I proposed 3 types of units pikex3, pikex2 shot, and shotx2 pike. A different way would be to allow the pike to support shot e from behind against either pike, shot or cavalry., as in the DBA 2.2 rules for psiloi supporting blades against warband.
Shot supporting cavalry often took heavy casualties, so maybe shot should provide only side support to mounted.
Mike Guth
|
|
|
Post by natholeon on Mar 31, 2018 1:55:56 GMT
I proposed 3 types of units pikex3, pikex2 shot, and shotx2 pike. A different way would be to allow the pike to support shot e from behind against either pike, shot or cavalry., as in the DBA 2.2 rules for psiloi supporting blades against warband. Shot supporting cavalry often took heavy casualties, so maybe shot should provide only side support to mounted. Mike Guth Thanks for the thoughts, Mike. OK, I've gone a quid each way here, and made the following changes, based on recommendations from here. First, 8Sh are a single base that represent formations that combine pike and shot together. Mounted on a 40 x 30 base for 15mm figures. I've reduced the combat factor for shot from 4+/4+ to 3+/4+, but in close combat with foot double elements get +1 against foot anyway. I've also altered the rear support, so that pike give a +1 factor to shot if lined up directly behind them. This means that you can choose to field armies with separate pike and shot elements but they should act the same way as 8Sh, you will just have less elements to play with. As per your comment above, Mike, I've changed the flank support from pistols supporting shot to shot supporting pistols. This seems to make much more sense as a reason to put your shot in with your horse, and your shot are still fighting on an even keel with the pistols frontally at 4+ each. I've given some thought as to what the armies might look like for c. 1632, and this is what I've come up with: Swedish: 1 x 3Pi (Gen), 1 x 3Pi (Finnish Hackapels), 2 x 4Pi (German horse), 1 x 4Pi or 3Pi, 3 x 8Sh or (2 x 4Sh + 1 x 4Pk), 2 x 8Sh or 4Sh, 1 x Dr or 3Wb (Scots), or 4Pk or Sk (Forlorn Hope), 1 x Art Imperialist: 1 x 4Pi (Gen), 3 x 4Pi, 2 x 4Pi or LH (Croats or Hungarians), 3 x 8Sh or (2 x 4Sh + 1 x 4Pk), 1 x 4Pk or Sk or Dr, 1 x 4Sh or Sk, 1 x Art I'm hoping those lists would be enough to keep both the separate pike/shot combos and the amalgamated pike/shot bases people happy. I've also changed the name of the QRS to DBARenaissance - doesn't seem right to call them DBA-RRR when that is Tony's baby, even if he isn't going to keep that name. Would people like me to do a guide to the troops types like the descriptors in the front of the DBA book as well? Here's the updated PDF: DBARenaissance QRS PDF.pdf (538.69 KB)
|
|
|
Post by markw on Mar 31, 2018 12:58:07 GMT
Hi,
This adaptation is looking good!
I have been running a few test games with Cromwell's ECW adaptation (DBA2.2) and am another with a preference for combined pike/shot bases. Primarily as I'm interested in the ECW and Nine Years Wars periods but I also share the feeling that separate pike shot bases don't work that well with just 12 elements.
And admittedly it means more figures & cost, but I also base my 15mm figures on 25mm base sizes which gives a little more room to get something resembling a regiment/battalia - or plenty if you move down to 10mm/6mm figures.
One observation if I may. Unless I'm missing something there seems to be no real distinction between what would be classed as pistols(O) and pistols(I) under DBR terms. Does it model/differentiate the caracoling troop type enough? Historical accounts do treat this tactical doctrine as a separate entity and appear to consider it less desirable, certainly once we move into the 17C. A specific example would be the Williamite Wars with the Irish/Huguenot/Danish horse as Pistols(F), English horse as Pistols(O) and the Dutch considered the poor relations as Pistols(I), relying on distance shooting/caracole. If you add the rear support factor could it make caracoling cavalry slightly too powerful versus other mounted?
Cheers.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 31, 2018 16:01:59 GMT
The caracole tactic was best used against pike blocks or foot formations that did not advance. To counter this tactic, cavalry were sent against them as a unit in caracole were essentially ‘stationary’. La Noue (Huguenot general) wrote in Discours politiques et militaires (1587) about preferred cavalry tactics.
This fits the 6Cv type well enough giving a +1 for the second rank when fighting foot in good going. If you wish a distinction between (S), (O), and (I) types, consider ‘S’ types recoiling opponent on an even score and allow a pursuit move.
|
|
|
Post by natholeon on Mar 31, 2018 21:13:22 GMT
Working with what happened historically, I'm wondering about this. Solid pistols use firepower, either in caracole or in a deliberate volley prior to contact. Now it seems from the above that the caracole is designed to counter infantry, and this makes sense. Cavalry had virtually no success against infantry when charging frontally. So what about changing the pistol factors to +3 vs foot and the rear support base to +1 vs foot only. We could also look at an 8Pi as a double based caracoling unit. This will disadvantage pistols vs foot unless they are supported, encouraging players to line up cavalry vs cavalry fights, and giving an incentive to put some commanded shot in with the cavalry. So a historical looking battlefield. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by markw on Apr 1, 2018 9:24:45 GMT
Thanks for considering this point. Both suggestions are good. But would reducing the pistols factor then weaken the overall troop type unrealistically? Also previous adaptations have tended to model caracoling horse as Cav and I'm happy to admit my mindset may be swayed by that.
I recall the DBR lists for the 17thC contain a number of statements in regard of caracoling horse along the lines of some later units "reverting to distance fire" or words to that effect, which to my mind has an implicit assumption built in that this was adopted as a general tactic used against both horse and foot...? This led me to ponder whether this troop type still needs a clear distinction in the rules.
I had a quick skim through a number of period-specific books last night to see if I could find any useful examples as to where this might apply but sadly no luck. Of course I may be wrong in my interpretation, or the assumption could be based on "anecdotal" reports of the time... so hope it's not a wild goose chase nor historically innacurate.
Referring to my example previously (Nine Years War/Williamite wars) I guess what I'm putting forward is how to both model and rate all the differing pistol sub-classes against each other - your adaptation already covers fast vs solid but within solid should there be two distinct types?
Hope that all makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2018 13:55:01 GMT
The ‘distance fire’ of the 17th century is in reference to pistols discharged at the enemy before closing to contact. This was not universally an accepted tactic but the personal preference of the unit’s commander. Conceivably, this tactical preference could vary within the grouping of cornets comprising a ‘regiment’.
This would change when military organization, drill and uniforms became formalised during the last quarter of the 17th century.
|
|
|
Post by natholeon on Apr 2, 2018 9:03:10 GMT
I played a test game tonight with some metal legions blu-tacked to bases. Swedes vs Imperialists 30 Years War. The rules seemed to run quite smoothly, although there were a couple of quirks which I need to address. Artillery vs artillery is over very quickly. I might have to look at the outcome here, because it is basically a roll off with the loser being destroyed. Shot supported by Pike will get +1 against both foot and mounted. The quick kill that mounted have over shot means that they need all the help that they can get. I played with Pistols getting +3 against foot. I had one draw where Swedish fast pistols auto-killed supported solid pistols, which was quite nice to see in action. The supporting Swedish commanded shot element was charged by the Imperialist general and was run over unceremoniously in the next bound. The 8Sh worked well, although both the Swedes and Imperialists lost a base, which meant that they counted 2 destroyed bases from the get-go. There is a batrep on my blog now. natholeonsempires.blogspot.co.nz/2018/04/spartans-win-again-and-pike-and-shot-dba.htmlMost current version: DBARenaissance QRS PDF.pdf (538.65 KB)
|
|
|
Post by markw on Apr 3, 2018 10:48:19 GMT
I played a test game tonight with some metal legions blu-tacked to bases. Swedes vs Imperialists 30 Years War. The rules seemed to run quite smoothly, although there were a couple of quirks which I need to address. The 8Sh worked well, although both the Swedes and Imperialists lost a base, which meant that they counted 2 destroyed bases from the get-go. Great Batrep and very useful to see how your rules played out. Gives much more meat to the bones. A further thought if I may. I must admit I've never been 100% convinced by double base elements in DBA which feel like more than a bit of a "fudge". That aside, the usual trade off for double based elements goes some way to addressing this - that a loss counts as two destroyed - but does that quite work in this example in terms of what it's trying to model? Is the 8Sh element that powerful enough to warrant it? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by markw on Apr 3, 2018 11:32:19 GMT
The ‘distance fire’ of the 17th century is in reference to pistols discharged at the enemy before closing to contact. This was not universally an accepted tactic but the personal preference of the unit’s commander. Conceivably, this tactical preference could vary within the grouping of cornets comprising a ‘regiment’.
This would change when military organization, drill and uniforms became formalised during the last quarter of the 17th century.
Hi. An interesting perspective on this issue but doesn't that first line interpretation apply more to solid pistols as in (O) or (S) who charge home at the trot? Having dug out my DBR lists there are quite a number of references which I think apply. In all cases the pistols(I) classification and notes seem to describe horse who whilst also in deep formation, caracole - firing from a discernable distance (in DBR with a range up to 100 paces) - and/or receive charges at the halt using pistol/carbine fire. The implied emphasis seems to be that they are very much reluctant to initiate (themselves) a charge home into combat. I appreciate during the period that doctrines were in flux and subject to individual whims of commanders as you say but this would to my mind still suggest they need treating differently somehow. Subsuming caracoling Reiters and their ilk into the same class as say Huguenot Millers/Cromwell's Ironsides etc doesn't feel quite right. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by natholeon on Apr 4, 2018 8:18:48 GMT
I played a test game tonight with some metal legions blu-tacked to bases. Swedes vs Imperialists 30 Years War. The rules seemed to run quite smoothly, although there were a couple of quirks which I need to address. The 8Sh worked well, although both the Swedes and Imperialists lost a base, which meant that they counted 2 destroyed bases from the get-go. Great Batrep and very useful to see how your rules played out. Gives much more meat to the bones. A further thought if I may. I must admit I've never been 100% convinced by double base elements in DBA which feel like more than a bit of a "fudge". That aside, the usual trade off for double based elements goes some way to addressing this - that a loss counts as two destroyed - but does that quite work in this example in terms of what it's trying to model? Is the 8Sh element that powerful enough to warrant it? Cheers. It is only the first base lost that counts as two, but even then I wonder whether it should. I felt that there was more of a game to be played, but it wasn't that different to the truncated Spartan-Persian game also featured in the blog post in that respect. When it comes down to it, double elements aren't just freely available - they have to be part of a list; does the +1 really warrant being classed as two elements lost? Don't they just represent a higher class of a certain troop type that the army lists otherwise don't cater for? Maybe in the case of the Renaissance, 8Sh shouldn't count as a double based element when lost? And actually, rather than making an exception, maybe no double elements should count as a double loss? I guess this is something that you could just keep as a house rule, rather than trying to write it into a rulesheet?
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 24, 2018 12:50:54 GMT
Just a quick comment.
The rules look promising (thanks Natholeon).
But (and maybe its just me) do Kn look a bit too awesome ? On a one-to -one basis Kn vs Pistols the kill ratio is around 14:1. Now I know Pi can get rear support (if Solid) and from flanking shot but they still look a bit overpowering especially as most Kn in the game are the old style gendarmes which were going out of fashion and not always highly rated by contemporaries (La Noue I think makes a comment along the uselessness of the lance).
At moment the best fix I can come up with is to allow Pistols to kill Kn on a draw.
Any thoughts ?
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 24, 2018 13:06:05 GMT
Must say I am really looking forward to the Lart renaissance release
|
|