|
Post by mthrguth on May 14, 2020 1:47:18 GMT
I view each element as a 12th of the army frontage. French gendarmes might be deployed in only 1 rank, 'en haye'. If we assume a pike element represents a front of 300 files infantry on a 40mm base, then there is enough base depth (15mm) to claim that there could be 60 to 80 ranks-way beyond the historical requirements for a 7 rank Dutch/Swedish/later Imperialist pike and shot unit. You can conclude that a single base may represent one or two regiments covering the gaps in each other's formation. (A discussion from Slingshot in early days by Roman Szwaba-why base depths are too deep in miniature wargames).
Why the 300 man front? Well, 300x7 ranks equals 2100; 12 of those bad boys gets you to 24000, which means that we are fighting battles and not skirmishes again but using just 12 elements.
I'm going to post some stuff from Turner's Pallas Armata on the Swedish T brigade, and from Marco van Der Hoeven's Exercise of Arms. Turner is actually primary source, and his description of the T Brigades at Breitenfeld is ignored in many secondary sources. van Der Hoeven gives the best explanation of how the Dutch structure gave a more efficient use of----firepower. Still even at Newport in 1600 Spanish units were a mix of larger Tercios and smaller more flexible units but the Tercio was not a Keil by this time. And because of the terrain, shot could fight in some places without a lot of pike support.
Mike
T
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 14, 2020 1:23:46 GMT
Dear Altefritz,
We're of the same vintage. Sold off my huge minifig and Hinchliffe Napoleonic collection for pennies a figure in 1987 thinking I had found true love.
Spoke with DBR gurus. First, they prefer DBR 1.2 to 2.0. In their opinion DBR 2.0 killed off the interest in pike and shot gaming from here to Michigan in 2004. Wish someone had told me. We could have gone back to 1.1. They say that 1.1 or 1.2 was more intuititve and faster. The very complicated pip costs in 2.0 were not my idea. I just wanted an extra pip to be paid for 'closing the door', because the movement rates were so fast.....
How badly written is DBR 2.0 regarding combat. Well, here it is, what happens when two pistols meet and one wins. Don't shoot the messenger....
"for example, Pistol(O) Vs Pistol(O). Give one of them a flank support. So the combat factor is 4 for one of them, 3 for the other (4-1)
Now add the dice to each of those - assume it is a 3 thrown by each. The final total is 7 for one, 6 for the other. The guy with a 6 has a score less than the enemy, but more than half. And as the enemy final score is odd (7) he is not destroyed. If the enemy had rolled a 4 and had a total of 8 he would have been (destroyed)."
Note that my rule expert and national champion at DBR forgot to mention that you also have to check whose bound it is. In the above example The lower scoring unit would only be destroyed if it was the higher scoring unit's bound. I can see the justification, aggressive chargers kill troops standing still, like Edgehill or Roundway Down.
The DBR 100 was really pretty good. Pistols I in 3 ranks in the first edition of the rules were pretty cool!
Mike Guth
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 13, 2020 14:37:55 GMT
Dear Alte Fritz.....
You are making me reread and relive my DBR days. I gave up ancients for a significant time to host DBR events at HMGS conventions for 3 or 4 years in the 1990's.
a. Units can move and shoot. You cannot MARCH and shoot. That is, you cannot multimove and shoot. p. 19 Distant shooting, opening paragrpah.
b. You are correct, inferior pistols do badly against other classes of pistols. (There is a whole debate on whether the 'caracole' actually existed. But pike blocks without screening shot were vulnerable to mounted pistoleers. This is cited in Exercise of Arms). The rout of Parliamentarian cavalry at Edgehill is often cited as proof that charging cavalry was superior to cavalry who attempted to use fire from the saddle before charging. Roundway Down is cited as the example of the superiority of charging cavalry over Parlimentarian armored cavalry attempting to use the 'caracole,' a victory for the 'Swedish system. Except that the 'Swedish' system did not seem to work very well at Lutzen....DBR gives the 'fast horse' the first shot at getting an auto kill....on a pistol opponent. c. I am not sure if an 'even final score' means a tie, or 2,4,6,8, 10 for the winner. I'll have to look it up.
Historical digression follows, ignore if you would like...
Before Yahoo died there was vigorous discussion about DBR, which Phil Barker apparently followed. He lists many participants from those discussions including many Americans on p. 27 under acknowledgements. There was a company, Pallas Armata Press, which put out reprints in softcover of many of the English language sources from that period. Sadly, it is gone. Not speaking Spanish, French or German very well, my sources were limited to English translations. In some cases this led to expensive disappointments. The standard translation of Guicciardini's History of Italy edits out most of the descriptions of battles! Polemon's 'All the Battels that have been Fought in Our Age,' has a wonderful selection of battle reports. One of Phil's research methods for ancients was to catalog short descriptions of ancient battles; and then test to see whether his rules could reproduce the plausible historical results. I suspect these note cards are the source for the battle summaries in the WRG Armies and Enemies series. I would wager that he used a similar procedure for DBR. Some of the battle reports in Polemon from the Italian Wars come from Iovius, or Jovius, who wrote both historical and scientific works in the early 16th century. You can buy a biography of this author in English. But his historical works are UNTRANSLATED out of Latin, other than a few accounts in Polemon. My decayed copy of Sir James Melville's Memoires contains what is alleged to be one the only description of what happens when two pike blocks collide head on. The answer is, they get stuck as the pikes become impaled in armor, cloths or, yuck, people. I realized later that there is certainly another description in Monluc from the battle of Cereosoles where he describes front ranks going down from the initial impact of pike on pike.
The pike blocks of the 16th century may also be different than those of the Macedonians. The Swiss pike block evolves from a 'blade' block to a blade and pike block, to a pike block with a proportion of troops armed with great two handed swords to cut a path through enemy pikes.
So, there is a lot of source material for the period. One source will cite a particular tactic or stratagem as having been the cause of victory. But on other occasions this will not reproduce the result. The specific conditions of the situation must also be considered. The Spanish swordsmen were credited with cutting down swathes of Swiss pike at Ravenna. Of course, they had the advantage of earthworks to disorder the pike. This is similar to the situation at Flodden, where English bills hacked down pike DISORDERED by terrain. Sword and buckler men were much less effective at Seminara and Eboli in the open against pike. At Seminara they were also cut up by cavalry.
Could an army of Swiss pikemen have defeated a 'modern' ECW army? I have little doubt that had a Swiss Keil actually hit a line of ECW Royalist foot, that the Royalists would be overthrown. It is more likely that the Royalist foot would have simply dispersed behind ditches and hedges to gradually wear away the Swiss. This is what happened at the battle of Sesia (cited by Taylor from Iouvius, and not available in translation that I have found). How would we model this in a 'game.'?
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 13, 2020 4:21:54 GMT
At the hot zone right now. Not much time to respond. There are sort of two threads now overlapping, this, and the new player doing DBR thread.
When I played DBA-RRR, the first thing to do was to find an army with the fewest pike. Having a pike element in the line with a factor of 3 against shooting was a weak point which would get hammered by shot at 4-3 with two assisting elements making a 4-1. Do this for 2 bounds and there is now a hole in the enemy line. With 12 elements a side, a hole in your line is usually certain death due to overlap/door closing.
The shooting against mounted was powerful enough with 1 or two elements assisting to get from a 2vs3 against knights, down to a 2 vs 1. This has a high chance of killing a knight, and a good chance of disrupting a pistoleer attack.
(The shooting factor against foot ignores the fact that by the early 1600's pike are in thinner formations with larger intervals unless they are closing up to charge or receive a charge. The larger intervals provide a potential place for shot to shelter, as occurred as late as Marston Moor.)
I forget the author for Exercise of Arms. This book discusses the difference between the Maurice-reformed Dutch infantry and the Spanish Tercio. First, the intervals between Dutch units were 'not large'. The purpose of the second checkerboard line of Dutch units was that they could advance and put a wad of pikemen into the spaces occupied by the shot if needed to stop an attack by cavalry or pike. The overall effect was to get more shot firing relative to the unit frontage than would be presented by a Spanish 'tercio' (a possible misnomer).
The Imperial General Montecucolli also discuses this. He is reprinted in 'The Military Intellectual and Battle.' Tilly's infantry formations at Breitenfeld were rapidly appreciated to be obsolete. Imperial formations by Lutzen are similar to Swedish formations, although without the small battalion guns. The Swedish T brigade also rapidly disappeared. Its use is described in English by an English officer in Gustavus' army. Again, the purpose was to get more firepower out of the unit. I'll post that tomorrow.
At the DBA scale, it is difficult to recreate the checkerboard small unit tactics. But a couple of things I'd like to see reflected in the game are that a. Pike support was necessary for shot against pike well into the 1500's b. Pike was necessary to protect shot from cavalry certainly up to Marston Moor and the Jacobite rebellions;(Actual battlefield casualties caused by all that shooting were actually small in the ECW, and hard to reconcile with casualty returns from battles like Lutzen in the TYW.) c. Shot could support cavalry. However, I disagree with DBR- I don't think the mounted did a good job of protecting the shot, ex. Breitenfeld, Marston Moor. By the TYW some shot was often happy to close with the enemy; sometimes after a concentrated volley (Breitenfeld; Reid-Gunpowder Triumphant, Montrose Scots). d. It should be more difficult to close the door in this period because units may actually represent intrinsic checkerboard formations which were designed to plug gaps, smoke interfered with command control, units performing rotational firing could not be easily directed to cease fire and charge into a gap-unless trained to do so (Montrose, Swedish GNW, TYW Scots). Its hard to charge into a gap when you are a musketeer peering through the smoke, marching to the rear after firing, unloaded and trying not to set your friend's powder off as you move about.
DBA becomes quite the dice off when there are so many shooting elements on the board. I had proposed the multi element infantry units to be able to show the evolution of combat from pike, to pike and shot, to shot and pike by showing three distinct infantry types. The multi element unit allows for gradual attrition before a weak point appears in a battle line mitigating the 1-6, gap in line, hard flank, game over effect.
I look forward to seeing what Tony comes up with.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 12, 2020 19:55:14 GMT
I am hoping that Tony will take this opportunity to break away from the 12 element stranglehold of DBA. What we need are 3 element infantry units. A three deep pike unit, the Swiss keil-hell in hand to hand combat. And, Swiss pike could all be fast, as was characteristic of their battlefield behavior. Then we have the early Spanish Tercio-one shot and two pikes, using firepower to cause attrition prior to combat. Finally, we have the ECW and later TYW where we have one pike for two shot. Pure shot units can exist, but are very vulnerable to cavalry. Blade units were used with some success by the Spanish against Pike at Ravenna, but with much less success in the open in an earlier battle-I would have to look it up. Certainly good against pike disordered by ground.. Pure shot units exist, and can stop Swiss IF they have the advantage of a wall or ditch or other cover. Otherwise, are likely to flee or be effectively if pike are allowed to close. At Breitenfeld, shot supporting the Swedish horse took very heavy losses according to The Swedish Intelligencer.
By the French WOR, mid 16th century, the French Captain Monluc explained it thus. Battles would begin with skirmishing between the shot. The side losing the skirmish would be compelled to attack or face gradual destruction by unanswered fire.
Units might pass through each other on the charge-one of the most fun things from Gush's WRG rules. On a tie, mounted might be allowed or required to interpenetrate either foot or horse and wind up facing rear to rear to an enemy formation. This can add some spice to combat outcomes.
Just some thoughts...
Mike Guth
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 12, 2020 19:39:11 GMT
It is a general failure of many rules that have games on a board so wide relative to army cost that one must deploy in an extended line to prevent being outflanked. This is a design flaw in the set up procedure of the rules. The use of a second line of troops may vary by period and situation. Art may demonstrate this. I managed to get a hold of Franklins' Les grandes scenes historique du 16th siecle, Paris, 1886-which has wood cuts for many of the battles of the French Wars of Religion; fighting in an extended line, maybe with a small reserve behind one flank to exploit success is fairly common. ECW, I agree that a second supporting line is now becoming more common. But you won't find much of a second line for Wallenstein's army at Lutzen. The battle lines of the ECW may look a bit like a Roman Legion with gaps left between units, especially cavalry, covered by troops in the second line. But Newbury is fairly linear. And we don't know how long those gaps persisted during combat; that is, did the second line move up quickly into the gaps? Also, while there is a lot of theoretical discussion of ratios of pike to shot in various armies, a given number of pike could only support a certain number of shot. At Bretenfeld Gustavus took a lot of shot and sent them off to support his cavalry. There are examples from the ECW as well.
Three good and accessible books are Halls' Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Taylors Art of War in Italy,Oman's Art of War in the 16th Century, Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, and Wood's The King's Army. For the ECW there are many more sources and a lot of controversy as to the relative roles of pike and shot. See Stuart Reid's Gunpowder Triumphant and Peachey's The Mechanics of Infantry Combat in the First English Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 12, 2020 11:45:23 GMT
The +2 factor applies only if you are in fortifications! Everyone does not get +2 in close combat.....
Michael Guth (listed in the back of the DBR rule book).
To this day the firepower in DBA and DBR is off. The problem is the ability to voluntarily combine fire at distant targets. Also there is no negative factor for firing at long range, and no decrement of fire for ammunition reloading, wind, or smoke obscuring target in the shot period. Pikes simply get slaughtered in DBR. Tournament after tournament revealed this flaw. DBR creates the shot and pikeless era. Try requiring elements to fire at the closest target within range, or a -1 for distant shooting beyond one base width distance..... Also, the +4 factor for Shot counting as a hand to hand factor against pike is probably off as well. One could argue that it includes the effects of a devastating close range volley by Shot. But Shot of this era were fighting quite dispersed. Otherwise your burning match cord could set your neighbors powder on fire!. Also, read the section on ballistics in Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe.
On balance DBR is better for the earlier pike and shot era than the later IMO, because the arquebus or shot I range is shorter, and pike can actually defeat inferior shot; unlike their later ordinary and superior cousins.
The DBX model has a problem in pike and shot gaming because the individual base model has trouble accounting as a construct for combined pike and shot blocks. I'm no FOG fan, but the FOG system tried to model pike and shot formations in a more historical way while still using DBA elements. I have not played the latest version of FOG. Sadly, FOG requires very BIG armies.
We did have some fun playing DBR 100 to start. The 2.0 rules introduced some movement restrictions to make it harder to win by just closing the door on one flank, page 16 bullet for 2 extra pips....
(DBA 3.0 increased bow range, and makes firing at long range MORE effective than at close range, AND decreased the protective value of large shields and plate armor-this prevents me from 'loving' DBA 3.0).
Mike
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 3, 2020 17:30:19 GMT
Lurkio figures. Although the German with hand ax is not in the original German infantry pack. I bet the Romans are available in metal now.
Metal is expensive, and you can have flash and pitting. Of course, we don't need the huge armies of Mortem et Gloria.......
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 2, 2020 17:54:25 GMT
A valuable resource for making your own counters etc.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 2, 2020 17:53:21 GMT
Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Feb 29, 2020 12:22:43 GMT
Mike Elliot is the creator of that camp. He is a great Ebay seller. I have several of his pieces in my collection. They are usually resin. He has done custom work for me based on sketches, photos and ideas I have discussed with him. I can't recommend him highly enough. Great guy.
As one gets older, there is often money, but not time to both paint and play. Add a grandchild or two into the mix, and even retirement may not provide the time one needs to enjoy all aspects of the hobby. I pick up pieces that I think are really good art, and give them a good home.
Just to be clear, I don't think Lesp meant his question as derogatory towards Mike Elliot.
People really value Mike's work. It is pretty typical to see his pieces get 50 pounds or more. I particularly like his Hittite/Assyrian style camps and cities, which come in various sizes and configurations. His castles are really nice. Because they are resin, they require a bit of care in transport.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Feb 3, 2020 22:25:54 GMT
don't the west sudanese III-69 extending to 1591 AD have the win for latest Cataphract?
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jan 27, 2020 17:55:24 GMT
And a controversial opinion. I am DONE giving GMT money for games with rules that cannot be easily explained or remembered. I bought their low density game on the fall of France and Poland. A clueless mass of rules. Which ones will be important? Which rules will cost you the game? Any of them? 40 pages?
I rarely have time to play a game 10 or 12 times, at 4 hours a game, to learn the rules. I'd rather play DBA.
Want a WOR game that takes 15 minutes to pick up? How about, well, the old AH Kingmaker?
And why a new GMT game using blocks when Columbia games just put one out? Columbia games, easy to learn, but often horrifically unbalanced, even after 3 editions (Napoleon).
mike
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Dec 14, 2019 13:06:39 GMT
The Goths are definitely the Lurkio miniatures' Goths! Wait, I just spent a fortune on those in metal......So that is quite a surprise. I wonder if ALL the Lurkio figures are going plastic?
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Dec 6, 2019 17:04:02 GMT
Just Play 'To the Strongest' instead. Heresy. Already worked out.
Micro measuring and arguing over movement can really detract from enjoyment of the game.
Poor Bloody Infantry is another good Grid game by Peter Pig games. They do a WWI game also.
|
|