|
Post by deraltefritz on May 11, 2020 16:26:01 GMT
Dear forum members, I am just starting to get used to the WRG rules De Bellis Renationis (DBR) version 2 (January 2004) which I intend to use to play turn of the century Imperialist versus Ottoman Turks ending up with the capture of Belgrade in 1714.
I am having a little trouble starting off with reading the rules as I have no background in DBA or DBMM to lean on. So I have put together a simple example of a pike block attacking a line of shot to run through what factors I should be using.
Example; line of BLUE 5 shot elements Sh(O) stationary against RED a 3 wide by 2 deep block of 6 Pk (O) with 2 Sh(O) on either side. Both in command range of General, starting 300 yards apart both grouped as 1 group.
Move 1, Red moved forward 100p Move 2 Red moved forward 100p, now 100p from Blue line. Red Sh(O) cannot fire as moved (p19 Distant Shooting para 1)? Blue can fire with centre three Shot elements each firing on a Pike element and two side elements firing on the Red Shot elements. Counts factors from page 20: Blue = Shot vs Foot = 4 + para Tactical Factors none seem to apply? = 4 Red = Pikes vs Foot = 3 + para Tactical Factors +2 "if shot at by any except Artillery(S) within 600p"? = 5 Red = Shot vs Foot = 4 + para Tactical Factors +2 "if shot at by any except Artillery(S) within 600p"? = 6
(I find the first factor of para "Tactical Factors" confusing: +2 "if foot or Artillery and protected by fortifications, if in close combat other than against Skirmishers (X) or if shot at by any except Artillery (S) within 600p or Bows. I can see the rationale for the first "if" but cannot see why everyone gets +2 in close combat except for this quite rare unit or why everyone should get a +2 if shot at by any except a rare Artillery unit or bows?)
Move 3 Red all survive the shooting and Red pikes move forward into contact Red = Pikes vs Foot = 3 + 1 for supporting element (para Close Combat Support Factors) +2 close combat (Tactical Factors) -1 for flank overlapped (centre poke element avoids this penalty) = 5 Blue = Shot vs Foot = 4 - 1 for supporting element (Close Combat Rear Support Factors) +2 close combat (Tactical Factors) =5 so an even match up?
Have I got this correct with DBR 2.0?
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 12, 2020 8:12:19 GMT
|
|
|
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 wjhupp on May 12, 2020 14:01:36 GMT
Mike,
Just looking at trying DBR-RRR out. It did seem to me the +4 for shot was high. I've read all the threads on mixed Pike/shot units and the mix over the 200 years does change radically. This does have to be done right to get the period right.
Does the command die process work? I can't see how one big line to avoid command die starvation looks right after looking at all the period art.
I've found a couple good blogs and am going to try out some historical battles with some small armies (friends and I have troops for the period, rarely used.)
We've had some very good TYW games with Black Powder Pike & Shotte, and I am curious how well the DBx model works.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 12, 2020 15:53:20 GMT
A very good set of rules which give fast play but a real feel for the era for the English Civil War and can be used for Thirty Years War is Simon Miller's "For King and Parliament" You can visit his shop here bigredbatshop.co.uk/He also produced "To the Strongest" an Ancients set of similar rules, however I prefer DBA for ancients.
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on May 12, 2020 16:28:06 GMT
Jim, I have tried DBR for this later 17th c period a few times but never got the hang of it. I think the rules do have potential if a few kinks are worked out though. In the 1.0 version there was a penalty for moving large groups which helped promote a checkerboard look like one sees in period engravings, but this might have had "knock on effects" so it was withdrawn in the 2.0 version. Some have suggested ways to get combined pike and shot elements if you read through this area of the forum. My best advice is to try a few simple elements at a time and read the rules slowly and over again:)
|
|
|
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 judebecker on May 12, 2020 20:25:55 GMT
The rules need to create an incentive to the player to let a second line to reinforce victories and offer reserves. Another recent discussion here that lasted for many pages on possible changes to DBA 3 have illustrated the need for this. Brent Nosworthy has recently written a book on tactics by General Monck during and before the ECW. Monck's Tactics. It discusses the depth and issues of second lines.
|
|
|
Post by deraltefritz on May 13, 2020 7:22:25 GMT
The +2 factor applies only if you are in fortifications! Everyone does not get +2 in close combat.....
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.
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.
MikeGreat, thank you Mike, that clears up that confusion. I have now made a Quick Reference Sheet and split up the Shooting and Close Combat tables to make it easier to read. Good point about the 200p shooting ability of Shot (O) which allows them 2 shots against any infantry trying to make contact or 1 shot against Fast Cavalry. Likewise about their 4 close combat factor compared to Pikes score of 3. Granted they get a single shot off at short range but in the subsequent fighting would have been defenceless. The other slight odd item is the restriction on moving and firing. 2 Shot (O) elements fighting each other: one moves into 200p range of other, takes a round of fire with no return. Probably resolved on a straight dice throw so 50% chance that it will recoil. Second round of firing and both can now fire at same level. I played another test attack this time, Pistols (I) standing to receive a charge of Pistols (F) move 1: Pistols (F) move 200p and am 150p away from Pistols (I), out of range move 2: Pistols (F) move 200p into contact. move 2 firing phase: Pi (I) cannot fire as in close combat contact move 2 close combat phase: Pi (F) fight at 4 Pi (I) fight at 4 unless they roll an equal or worse die roll when they get -1. On several play throughs, my best result was that Pi(F) destroyed 2 out of 3 Pi(I) and then "Pressed on" which is where you second line of supporting cavalry would help in a chequerboard formation.
|
|
|
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 deraltefritz on May 13, 2020 16:53:18 GMT
Dear Mike This illustrates why it is often better to learn WRG rules from experienced players and they are written so concisely that you have to take real care in interpreting them. I had noticed the "march" move along roads but had not logged it as a defined "term" so mis-read the moving and firing paragraph. Thanks. I have used WRG rules since 1970s especially 1685-1845 and so am quite used to their style but I get little time for gaming these days and was always attracted to the idea enstrined in the Army Lists of having a selection of small armies to play off one against the other as opposed to fighting large battles between the same two similar armies. So the current idea is to go to 3D printed 2mm model armies (see forwardmarchstudios.com/ ) which has blocks suitable for Renaissance through to Napoleonic, printed period maps as the tabletop (https://gumroad.com/l/VSSiX) and even a printed paper fort (https://www.paperterrain.com/vauban-forts) and to use this generic system so that I can have a go with a wide variety of exotic armies without painting thousands of figures or requiring a table tennis table set up (which I do not have the space for at present) In this regard DBR seems to fit the right scale, plays quickly and is flexible enough to cover the whole period and probably well into C18th too with a few house rules. Very interested in your historical digression or even history of wargaming as well. I started as a lad in 1970 at Southampton with Donald Featherstone with plastic Airfix troops and a few Hinchliffe figures and continued right up to about 2000 with Napoleonic 25mm and SYW 15mm but I bought George Gush's book when first published and his rules and used them a few times. But it is always something I would have liked to have another go with.
|
|
|
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 deraltefritz on May 15, 2020 5:09:39 GMT
Dear Mike That is easily solved since 1.1 (1997) is available on Scribd for free download. The differences are subtle, like the PIP cost of moving groups of more than 4 elements. Might see if I can pick up a 1.0 somewhere to see the difference of the first version. There are a number of 2.0 versions on Scribd but these are Nov 2003 so represent easlier drafts rather than the published January 2004
Trying to simulate a command and control structure and friction is always difficult, balancing the commanders overall plan and the local commanders initiative. It struck me that a D6 dice roll for generating PIP is not ideal but when combined with General at least it brings some sort of structure into the force. Armies especially attacking armies will usually start with a plan (even if "when you hear the first gun fire, everyone move forward together" type of plan) but once set in motion, this disintigrates and command becomes more local in nature from a General dashing about or writing orders. Finally combat starts to break up the command structure as units gets lost or disorientated or seperated and General get to command just the brigade they are with as all the aide-de-camps are now dead and smoked covers the battlefield.
Relatively easy to simulate with the attacker able to move the entire army or each wing straight forwards for free until they do something like turn, halt, etc when PIPs start to count. Then use PIPs but lower the cost of breaking up a group however not allowing the group to reform or costly. Might do something to counter the effect that PIPs become progressively cheaper as the battle goes on as units are destroyed = fewer elements under command = PIPs move a greater part of the command that is left.
|
|
|
Post by deraltefritz on May 15, 2020 14:44:27 GMT
Was having a read of Horse Foot Guns which uses the same mechanisms as for DBR and it is interesting to compare the combat factors
DBR * Pistols +4 (Cavalry) +3 (Foot) * Pikes +4 (Cavalry) +3 (Foot) * Shot +2 (Cavalry) +4 (Foot) HFG * Cuirassiers +4 (Cavalry) +3 (Foot) * Pistols +3 (Cavalry) +3 (Foot) * Firelocks +3 (Cavalry) +2 (Foot) * Muskets +4 (Cavalry) +3 (Foot) * BL rifles +4 (Cavalry) +4 (Foot)
Now we are talking about a different figure scale HFG 1 element = 1000 men DBR 1 element = 400 men (in condensed 2mm). But Shot has the same relative factor as Breech Loading Rifles, whereas the contempory Firelocks (Louis XIV infantry) has half the firepower.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 15, 2020 18:31:25 GMT
Just ordered horse foot and guns myself. Always wondered why Phil took so long to bring it out, and didn't seem to support it very much. I'm look forward to giving it a try.
Dell’arte Della Guerra - campaign and battlefield rules for the Italian Renaissance.
I found the above rules on the wargamevault.com site. I have not purchased nor read them. But what intrigues me is that the rules feature a battle generating system other than the attacker/defender, place terrain, choose sides mechanism of DBA. It might be fun. Poor Bloody Infantry from Too Fat Lardies depends heavily on a pre-battle phase to set the stage for the battle; and Mortem et Gloria also has an extensive pre battle phase. If I were designing DBA-RRR or HFG from scratch, I would look to see if this new 'hotness' of the strategic pre game phase could be added to the game.
|
|