I finally dug out my ECW figures yesterday and tried out some ECW battles using Dominion of Pike & Shot. They proved to be quite fun.
Here's a quick one so you can get a feel for the rules. I used armies from 1643.
First, here's Parliament's troops - 2 x Melee Horse, 3 x Missile Foot (with Pikes) and 1 x Artillery
Parliament was the defender. This was the initial setup, with the two sides' horse facing each other on the flanks and the shot-heavy foot in the centre. Both sides had foot in reserve (as well as artillery for Parliament)
This was a fairly one-sided action with the Royalist horse on the left sweeping all before it. Parliament won one combat.
I'd played a few games before this one using the same (or similar) armies, and the honours have been about even.
I made two changes to the rules. I mean, did you really think that I wouldn't have by now?
Firstly I gave an army a +1 on its pre-battle bombardment if it had a unit of artillery in the army. Artillery is not that hot in with ECW armies in play as it's best against armoured units. I thought this made it a little more worthwhile. It's an interesting change regardless I think.
Secondly I decided to better reflect mixed pike and shot units. In the rules as written, whichever weaponry is dominant decides the whole nature of the unit, so shot-heavy units are missile foot and pike-heavy units are melee foot. This kind of works, except when it comes to the rules about which unit types are vulnerable to others. The shot-heavy foot are easily ridden down by melee horse, whilst dragoons (missile horse) make a mess of the pike-heavy foot. This felt wrong; in the former case the pikes should count for something whilst in the latter the shot in the formation should provide some equality.
So my solution is to add a new trait - Mixed. Foot defined as Mixed has a balance of missile and melee weapons. It is defined as either missile or melee as normal. However unit types that have an advantage over that type lose it, whilst the mixed unit does not gain any combat advantage over the types it would normally do so either. So, for example, a melee foot unit is vulnerable to missile mounted troops, but enjoys an advantage over melee mounted. A mixed melee foot unit has enough shot to hold off the missile mounted troops, so they lose their bonus, but it doesn't have the edge over the melee foot any more and loses its bonus as well.
I appreciate that this takes away part of the decision space of the game as it removes favourable unit matchup tactics, but I felt that it eliminated what I felt were some tactics and situations that felt distinctly un-ECW.
All (or mostly) pike units would still count as regular melee foot, whilst shot units would count as regular missile foot.
Mixed could be used for Tercios and 30 Years War units.
I have started scribbling down some ideas for random army generation as well as random events, both pre-battle and during the battle itself.
I’m interested to see how your “mixed” trait works out, as you play more games. I’m also keen to see any other modifications/amendments you make. I do like to tinker - although sometimes I have a tendency to tinker soooo much I lose sight of the original concept.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Geoff
Firstly, thanks for the two Dominion reports. I have seen Dominion of the Spear, and followed Maudlin Jack Tar’s blog posts, but not yet tried it.
ReplyDeleteI found PW 3x3 fast and furious, but a tad flavourless (though I DID get a full campaign run with it PDQ), so the prospect of an even smaller grid wasn’t instantly appealing.
The ‘mixed foot’ case has always been a challenge for wargames rules writers. Will taking away the troop type difference between Melee and Missile foot, while making things far more ‘ECW’, run the risk of making all the foot a bit ‘grey’? It will certainly sort the issue, though running the risk of reducing game enjoyment level. Maybe using the ‘mixed foot’ set up with an ‘elite’ status on the odd occasions when one side’s foot were significantly tougher than their opposing numbers might work? (sorry for the long rant…🙃).
In reality the change doesn't make them greyer; all it does is take away some factors that make it easier for units to defeat each other. To some extent it *adds* depth to the game - as the game stands an all-shot foot unit and a shot-heavy pike & shot unit are functionally the same. With this change they aren't; the shot unit is more vulnerable than the pike & shot unit to melee horse but less vulnerable than it to missile horse.
DeleteAs you say, pike & shot units are always a fiddle, and more so if you add in representation of ratios.
I've payed a lot more DotS than DoPS, but I was also a bit unhappy about some of the match ups for ECW and TYW, so thanks for the suggestions. My current DotS project (Alexanders war against Persian as a participation game) is at the wrapping up phase, so I'll spend a bit more time playing around with DoPS. Good suggestion on the artillery bonus in bombardment, they seem a pretty useless unit type. I've also been putting mine in reserve, which seems very ahistorical!
ReplyDeleteIt was only today that I've noticed that I've been playing teh pre-battle bombardment incorrectly. If you hit infantry then they retire to the reserve. However mounted don't retire; they launch an immediate attack. I'm wondering if the +1 (which would make this more likely) might be a bit much. The change was replicated on the artillery bombardment simply causing a deployment rearrangement.
DeleteI do note, however, that in the example battle given in the rules a mounted unit is hit by the artillery and retires rather than attacks :)
I think that historically speaking artillery of this era was "pretty useless"! I have tried to limit the number of Artillery units in the Army Lists with most armies not having separate Artillery, with their artillery accounted for in pre-battle bombardment phase. Where Artillery units do come into their own is against armoured Infantry. And of course Artillery units attack first so it is always a risk attacking them.
DeleteGood catch! Amend to Melee Mounted charge if hit by the pre-battle bombardment, while Infantry and Missile Mounted retire to the Reserve. Cuirassiers and Lancers were by nature more aggressive. Thanks
ReplyDeleteSteve
Let’s look at ECW and the odds as they stand:
ReplyDeleteRoyalist Cavaliers (elite) attacking Parliamentarian Musketeers: Musketeers fire first needing a 5+ then Cavaliers needing a 2+ so the odds are Musketeers win 3/9, Cavaliers win ⅔ x ⅚ = 5/9 and no result ⅔ x ⅙ = 1/9. So definitely advantage to the Cavaliers but they are a 3 point unit. The Musketeers are also probably distinctly unhappy at being attacked by Royalist cavalry and wondering where their own cavalry is!
Parliamentarian cavalry (also Melee Mounted) against Royalist Pikemen: combat is simultaneous: Cavalry (4+) wins ½ x 1/3 = 1/6, Pikemen (3+) win ½ x ⅔ = 2/6, mutual destruction ½ x 2/3 = 2/6 and no result ½ x ⅓ = ⅙. So the Parliamentarian cavalry don’t really want to attack the Royalist pikemen, unless of course they can outflank them!
Thoughts so far?
I have no issue with those calculations.
DeleteWhat I was trying to seek though was a way to differentiate between pike units that are essentially all pike and those that have a high percentage of muskets (plus all-shot/missile units vs those with a substantial core of pikes). The ECW is going to mostly be these mixed unts, but there are units that could, within the score of this game, be classed as all-pike, and certainly units that would operate as all-shot. So they would enjoy (and suffer) the troop-type modifiers, whilst their mixed brethren smooth the odds a little.
I appreciate that it is skewed a little by the types of troops that aren't common in the era. Missile foot with pikes are less vulnerable to melee horse, and against that only lose a bonus against missile horse, of which there is little to none (although I'd possibly class ECW dragoons as such for reasons I'm happy to explain elesewhere :) ). So they gain. Mixed melee foot lose out a little because they lose their edge over melee horse, whilst only gaining less vulnerability to missile horse (and see above for their frequency).
I was finding that if, for example, Parliament was the defender and set up in a classic Horse-Foot-Horse formation, my best option was to match the Horse with my Royalist melee foot, since they got the same odds as the elite cavaliers, but at 2/3 of the cost. This may be a viable setup for the earlier pike & shot period (not really something I know about), but it felt wrong from an aesthetic point of view for the ECW.
(Yes, I know the horse get the outflanking bonus, but that's a few turns down the line. With my cavaliers in reserve I can feed them into the flanks later, once the enemy horse is gone. That said, with the above set-up I'm better off having a cavalier in the centre to oppose Parliament's missile foot.)
Does that make sense so far?
I am still thinking about all this! One thing about putting the Cavaliers against Parliament's missile foot is that the foot attack first so there is a real risk of the (3 point) Cavaliers not even managing to get their attack in, while against other Melee Mounted they will get to attack. In my games I was always a bit wary of charging Melee Mounted at Missile Infantry, especially if the cavalry are elite. Against the Parliament deployment of Horse Foot Horse, one could view the armies as meeting while marching, with the Left Sector representing where they first meet. So the Royalist Foot meet the Parliamentarian Horse. Not sure it helps but there are different possible ways of looking at the battlefield. I did consider when I was writing the rules treating mixed units differently but in the end I wanted to keep the rules very simple so went with just the 4 basic troop types (plus artillery).
DeleteSteve
Sure. I can appreciate that the setup can represent different types of battles (and I'm pondering some random events for campaigns that would cause such things, such as forcing armies to randomly assign one or more units to certain sectors to represent ambushes or confused deployments).
DeleteI feel that the change I made was simple to adjudicate and in keeping with the rules. I'm a big fan of such things!
I am currently finalising Dominion of the Pike and Shot for the print version at Lulu (and also a corrected version on Wargames Vault) with the pre-battle bombardment correction that only Melee Mounted charge when hit. Can I add your mixed units suggestion as an optional rule? Do you mind? Do you think it would be good to add it? I could squeeze it in somewhere if I tightly word it.
DeleteSteve
Sure! I'm more than happy for it to be included as an optional rule. I think my wording is a little clumsy, so I hope you can do a better job than I :)
DeleteMany many thanks. I'll try to sort the wording, not least because it has to fit in somewhere and space is really tight. Credit you by name or just include it?
DeleteOh, I always love a credit please - Kaptain Kobold or Alan Saunders is fine :) Thank you.
DeleteAlan, I amended the Dominion of Pike and Shot files on sale to correct the pre-battle bombardment issue that you spotted. I have not yet added "Mixed" units as I am struggling to get the words right, have been in discussion with Martin over units, and still need to squeeze it in somewhere. Still on the cards. Did not want you to think that I was ignoring this and was not interested in including it.
DeleteAll the best
Steve
No worries. I wasn't checking or fretting or anything :)
DeleteI just had an interesting idea as I try to pin down the modifiers in Dominion of Frederick the Great and those for heavy cavalry versus line infantry in particular. What if some modifiers are different depending if that side chose that sector for combat that round or the other side chose it? Or indeed, some modifiers could even depend on whether one is the overall Attacker or Defender. Opens up a lot more possibilities for nuanced modifiers! I'll have to think more.
ReplyDeleteSteve
That is an interesting idea. Some of the rules in Phil Barker's DBx system use such mechanisms.
DeleteI must confess that playing Dominion solo I sometimes forget whose turn it is though :-D
You mentioned earlier classifying ECW Dragoons as Missile Mounted. Could you explain this further? What proportion of the cavalry would this apply to?
ReplyDeleteSteve
First up I thought that it created a nice variety in terms of available troop types. In terms of numbers there's be no more than one unit in a standard 12 point force, and to be fair that would maybe be over-representing them.
DeleteMissile Foot could work for them; from what I understand they were more mounted infantry than cavalry with guns. And that would make them vulnerable to melee mounted too, which is not unreasonable (whilst giving them a bonus against missile mounted of which there's virtually none in the ECW).
However I went with Missile Mounted because the advantage/disadvantage modifiers against foot didn't seem unreasonable, it reflected the fact that they were mobile, even if only early in their activity in the battle, but primarily because it encourages you to stick them on the flanks, as they can then get the mounted outflanking bonus later in the game.
If you're using my random army generator you might get one unit of dragoons in a force. At a pinch you may get two but that's still not unviable; it would represent a non-standard force, but not an unrealistic one.
DeleteLooks good to me! Having a different unit or two adds to the need to make decisions and I have no issues with their designation as Missile Mounted or Missile Foot.
ReplyDeleteSteve