REN Disorder

[Gnaeus]

Can someone explain to me the factors causing disorder? I've looked at the User's Manual at p. 14, on obstructed terrain, and I've searched "disorder" in the manual. Some units seem to be disordering the stack when they move onto other units, for example, arquebuses moving into pike blocks. I think I've also seen it with halberds moving onto other units, even when they're in column.

Also, is there any significance to stacking order, other than whether artillery can fire?

Thanks.

 

[trauth116]

Can someone explain to me the factors causing disorder? I've looked at the User's Manual at p. 14, on obstructed terrain, and I've searched "disorder" in the manual. Some units seem to be disordering the stack when they move onto other units, for example, arquebuses moving into pike blocks. I think I've also seen it with halberds moving onto other units, even when they're in column.

Also, is there any significance to stacking order, other than whether artillery can fire?

Thanks.

Some of this requires some looking up, and I am not in a position to do so at this moment... but some I can address by memory.

Last question first: Stacking order also affects which units in line can fire as well. If there is more than one unit in line (say 2 arquebusier units). Only the top one can fire. If say you have the line unit on top and some skirmishers under, you'll have to bring the skirmishers to the top. All of them can fire, but they can't be stacked under line.

Column causing disruption when entering a hex with column, this is a little trickier as I don't know the situation you had, but it can depend on other terrain in the hex.

As for putting Arquebusiers in the same hex with pike units that form block, since arquebusiers can't form block the 2 units in the same hex that have different formation types would cause a disruption. The same holds true if, say there are 2 or more arquebusier (or any other type of units) in a hex- they need to all change to the same formation type (out of a column formation), pointing in the same direction at the same time otherwise this will cause a disruption. Skirmishers can move into the hex with a pike block (or any other formation and not cause a disruption). But the example provided would be causing a disruption by having different formations in the same hex.

Also there is a (I think optional rule) that there is a possibility of disrupting while moving in any formation other than column.

 

[Gnaeus]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll double check the formations the next time I play around with this.

Are the rules on disorder in one of the manuals? I haven't been playing the Napoleonic games, so I'm behind the curve on a lot of this.

Is having the muskets hide in the pikes to avoid cavalry from a later period?

 

[trauth116]

Is having the muskets hide in the pikes to avoid cavalry from a later period?

I have to check the documentation as well, but for the above, I think that is what is represented with the skirmishers being allowed to stack with a block (within the limits of the stacking restrictions).

One thing, too (just occurred to me) is that with the Arquebusiers (as well as a lot of units) are classified as "Light" units- which means that you can break the entire unit can be broken down into skirmisher units ( but, if you form the entire unit as skirmishers then they can't ever be anything but skirmishers). So in theory you could put an entire gun unit in the same hex as a formed block giving it a fire capability from any angle (which wouldn't be as effective as say, being in line -but still be there).

__

Fire combat, is an interesting thing, in that (iirc) you get a bonus for your first fire, as well as if you take it without having moved, which are pretty significant. This is a similar mechanism to what HPS has used in its Early American War series, as well as its Civil War series (and I assume the Napoleonic series, but I'd have to check the rules --- but it would be consistent with the other 2 series). So if you just move up to something and fire, it won't be as effective as if you move up to something, stop, then fire the next turn. I imagine most players that get the games jump in, move things around and fire at will (well I used to I guess -so maybe it was just me )... but that is not necessarily the most efficient manner to manage your fire discipline in a lot of cases.

 

[Gnaeus]

I played around with this last night, and it looks like my problem was moving reinforcements in column onto another unit in line and changing formation. It looks like you can move limbered artillery onto infantry and unlimber it, however.

It might be time for a sticky to collect some of the tactical aspects of the game that aren't in the manual. You're probably going to pull in some new players with this series and I certainly found the constant disordering pretty frustrating.

On the subject of coordination between pikes and arquebuses, I don't have Oman, but I took a look at Archer-Jones, The Art of War in the Western World. His description of the use of combined arms in the 16th century seemed generally consistent with the game. The relationship between pikes and firearms was in the process of being worked out, and in open field battles arquebuses were often deployed as skirmishers, which would retreat to the rear of pike squares if attacked by cavalry.

If the series moves on to the English Civil War or the Thirty Years' War, there will have to be some modifications.

So far this game looks very promising.

 

[Nicholas Bell]

Going into lecture mode:

If you look at period illustrations you will see that the "shot" was arrayed in multi-rank sleeves and bastions around the pike blocks. These would in fact be "lines" not skirmishers, IMO. They did not leave the immediate protection of the pike formation. Skirmishers would of course be dispatched from the main formation.

Unfortunately the scale of this game (grand-tactical) does not allow for a detailed representation of all the formation shapes, types, and gyrations they went cycled through. In the time frame depicted the shot could deploy, fire and recover to protected positions behind or inside the pike block. Therefore , shot and pike deployed in the same hex should be both fully fire capable and ready to receive a charge at the same time - at this game scale. That is, it would probably be more realistic to have unit types which have both shock and fire capability to take into account what was possible in 10-15 minutes.

Furthermore, position in a hex should have nothing to do with whether shot can fire, because the men moved forward and back in file, not rank. The first rank would fire and they move to the back of the file and start reloading. Each rank would do the same. More ranks meant more firing, not less. The number of ranks was determined by the amount of shot available and the formation width they needed to cover.

17th Century (30 Years War) actually much more flexible and closer to 18th century formations, when both the Dutch and Swedes first began utilizing pure musket formations not unlike those in the 1700's, albeit with more ranks because of slow reload times.

IIRC volley fire (depicted in the first fire bonus) was not "invented" during the period of REN. Heck, even marching in step was pretty much unknown.

Back on point. Formations were of course cumbersome and large, so having different units entering a hex cause disruption is accurate. However, pike and shot should not have this effect on each other - at least for movement purposes. It is also worth noting that these formations were not just a mish-mash of men armed with different weapons, but were formations which trained and fought together as "companies" or "regiments" under the banner of their "leader".

 

[Gnaeus]

Going into lecture mode:

Lecture away. This is all interesting stuff. Not having read Oman, I'm not in a position to do anything but listen attentively. Archer Jones is pretty broad brush, and doesn't deal with tactics at this level of detail.

If you look at period illustrations you will see that the "shot" was arrayed in multi-rank sleeves and bastions around the pike blocks. These would in fact be "lines" not skirmishers, IMO. They did not leave the immediate protection of the pike formation. Skirmishers would of course be dispatched from the main formation.

I've seen the engravings. We're dealing with a pretty long period of time in the game. Do you think that this is equally applicable to the entire period?

Unfortunately the scale of this game (grand-tactical) does not allow for a detailed representation of all the formation shapes, types, and gyrations they went cycled through. In the time frame depicted the shot could deploy, fire and recover to protected positions behind or inside the pike block. Therefore , shot and pike deployed in the same hex should be both fully fire capable and ready to receive a charge at the same time - at this game scale. That is, it would probably be more realistic to have unit types which have both shock and fire capability to take into account what was possible in 10-15 minutes.

Furthermore, position in a hex should have nothing to do with whether shot can fire, because the men moved forward and back in file, not rank. The first rank would fire and they move to the back of the file and start reloading. Each rank would do the same. More ranks meant more firing, not less. The number of ranks was determined by the amount of shot available and the formation width they needed to cover.

***

Formations were of course cumbersome and large, so having different units entering a hex cause disruption is accurate. However, pike and shot should not have this effect on each other - at least for movement purposes.

From a game standpoint, is the conclusion then that allowing arquebus skirmishers to stack with the pike blocks does not sufficiently represent period tactics? If so, either the arquebuses in line should be allowed to stack with pike blocks with no restriction on firing based on their position in the stack, or the two should be combined into a single unit with roughly the current defensive and movement properties of pikes, along with ranged fire. If I understand the game system correctly, neither would be too difficult to do.

17th Century (30 Years War) actually much more flexible and closer to 18th century formations, when both the Dutch and Swedes first began utilizing pure musket formations not unlike those in the 1700's, albeit with more ranks because of slow reload times.

I'm not sure that the separate musket units, e.g., the type Gustavus used to support his cavalry, supplanted combined musket/pike formations during the Thirty Years' War, but I'm not really up on this anymore. That'll be a good topic for the next game in the series.

 

[trauth116]

Going into lecture mode:

If you look at period illustrations you will see that the "shot" was arrayed in multi-rank sleeves and bastions around the pike blocks. These would in fact be "lines" not skirmishers, IMO. They did not leave the immediate protection of the pike formation. Skirmishers would of course be dispatched from the main formation.

It should be noted, though that I was not speaking from a historical standpoint, but from the technical standpoint as to how the game engine is working.

Arq's in line can stack with Pikes in block -however since you are not allowed to change a pike to block and a arq unit to line at the same time, it would mean getting the pike into block separate from the arq going into line. (Once disordered you can't change formation). Then in a following turn move one or the other to the same hex - at which point a block and a line will cause a disorder. Now I suppose that maybe the disorder can be recovered from (? -not sure on that one, as there are 2 different formations in the same hex which might be an issue -will try it though ... but then again, to be completely honest I knew nothing about this period before getting into the test... and what I know now is just about the mechanics of the system). The skirmisher thing I was talking about was probably an abstraction for a similar effect.

Ok (back from testing the above), it doesn't seem like this is going to be allowed in the same hex to have a line and a block; but then again it is also going to be possible to have an extended formation with a couple of blocked units guarding arqs in line (that a zoc area prevented anyone from meleeing with).

 

[Aryaman13]

Going into lecture mode:

If you look at period illustrations you will see that the "shot" was arrayed in multi-rank sleeves and bastions around the pike blocks. These would in fact be "lines" not skirmishers, IMO. They did not leave the immediate protection of the pike formation. Skirmishers would of course be dispatched from the main formation.

Unfortunately the scale of this game (grand-tactical) does not allow for a detailed representation of all the formation shapes, types, and gyrations they went cycled through. In the time frame depicted the shot could deploy, fire and recover to protected positions behind or inside the pike block. Therefore , shot and pike deployed in the same hex should be both fully fire capable and ready to receive a charge at the same time - at this game scale. That is, it would probably be more realistic to have unit types which have both shock and fire capability to take into account what was possible in 10-15 minutes.

Furthermore, position in a hex should have nothing to do with whether shot can fire, because the men moved forward and back in file, not rank. The first rank would fire and they move to the back of the file and start reloading. Each rank would do the same. More ranks meant more firing, not less. The number of ranks was determined by the amount of shot available and the formation width they needed to cover.

17th Century (30 Years War) actually much more flexible and closer to 18th century formations, when both the Dutch and Swedes first began utilizing pure musket formations not unlike those in the 1700's, albeit with more ranks because of slow reload times.

IIRC volley fire (depicted in the first fire bonus) was not "invented" during the period of REN. Heck, even marching in step was pretty much unknown.

Back on point. Formations were of course cumbersome and large, so having different units entering a hex cause disruption is accurate. However, pike and shot should not have this effect on each other - at least for movement purposes. It is also worth noting that these formations were not just a mish-mash of men armed with different weapons, but were formations which trained and fought together as "companies" or "regiments" under the banner of their "leader".

I have thought about that as well, but I think the game does a reasonable representation of pike/shot interaction. Regular sleeves of arquebussiers would not be inside block cover, but to the front and flanks, in game terms in adjacent hexes, while arquebussiers inside pike blocks would be in loose formations adequately represented as skirmishers.
It is true that companies were mixed of pike and shot, but it is also true that in battle they deployed in separated formations, and that well before the 17th century, "pure" musket formations were the rule from the start.
As for "volley", it is as old as the use of any shot formation, the novelty was the introduction of firing by ranks, that required especial training.

 

[Gnaeus]

If you look at some of the engravings accompanying the articles on Wikipedia, it appears that the pike and muskets are pretty closely associated at least by the time of the Dutch Revolt. I couldn't find anything definitive from an earlier period. It looks like a pike block surrounded by musketeers (I'm using the term loosely here, since I'm not up on the timeline of firearm development).

In theory, the musketeers would move behind the pikes when cavalry started to charge. I haven't done enough reading to know how this worked in practice. So in theory, at the scale of the game, you should be getting effective musket fire, while a cavalry charge should be hitting pikes, at least when the defender isn't surrounded. I don't know how easy it was for musketeers to hide between the pikes, or enter the block.

In the game, I don't think you can put your muskets in front of the pikes, because you won't be able to withdraw them to avoid a cavalry charge. I don't think alternating pike and musket will prevent an attack on the muskets. I don't know how fire is calculated, but there's probably a considerable fire penalty to breaking the muskets into skirmishers to stack them with the pikes. Maybe someone more familiar with the game mechanics can comment on this.

 

[Nicholas Bell]

Regular sleeves of arquebussiers would not be inside block cover, but to the front and flanks, in game terms in adjacent hexes, while arquebussiers inside pike blocks would be in loose formations adequately represented as skirmishers.

I disagree because of the game scale, 100 meters/hex 10-15 min/turn. If the scale were 25 meters/4 minutes, maybe. I must admit that I was disappointed that a smaller scale was not used for this game.

Because I can only effectively read English, I cannot claim to be an authority. But 30+ years of studying and gaming this period enables me to comfortable with my assertions. And there's no problem with having differing opinions

Many decades ago I converted several miniature rules covering this period into a board wargame, making my own map and using SPI Prestags counters as place holders (unit data keep off map). I used 100 meter hexes also. Learned the hard way that it was not possible to reproduce the detail I sought using this scale. However, with some abstraction and streamlining it turned out to be a fairly realistic system (in that I was able to achieve historical results).

I would suggest a source for those wanting to easily learn more would be to lean on the experience of the miniature community and the plethora of rules & discussions about these matters. Plenty of information freely available.

One book not listed in the bibliography and IMO is critical for getting one's head around this is one of Hans Delbrueck's volumes, "Rise of Modern Warfare". There's a ton of information on the web of course. This site has a lot information about formations neatly packaged:
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html

For some excellent rules regarding morale, command and control check out Spanish Fury! http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/sfbattle.html Might have to join the Yahoo Group to download them. Having previously used similar type rules manually implemented on top of JTs ACW games, I was planning on doing the same for REN. As is evident, I'm not so sure it will work for me - but you may feel different.

My point is that at the game scale, some abstractions have to be made. Believe me, I understand the constraints the game developer has to work under. I do a little work for HPS myself Allowing shot to maintain line formation with pike units seems like a simply solution. But perhaps the implementation is not so easy.

 

[Aryaman13]

If you look at some of the engravings accompanying the articles on Wikipedia, it appears that the pike and muskets are pretty closely associated at least by the time of the Dutch Revolt. I couldn't find anything definitive from an earlier period. It looks like a pike block surrounded by musketeers (I'm using the term loosely here, since I'm not up on the timeline of firearm development).

In theory, the musketeers would move behind the pikes when cavalry started to charge. I haven't done enough reading to know how this worked in practice. So in theory, at the scale of the game, you should be getting effective musket fire, while a cavalry charge should be hitting pikes, at least when the defender isn't surrounded. I don't know how easy it was for musketeers to hide between the pikes, or enter the block.

In the game, I don't think you can put your muskets in front of the pikes, because you won't be able to withdraw them to avoid a cavalry charge. I don't think alternating pike and musket will prevent an attack on the muskets. I don't know how fire is calculated, but there's probably a considerable fire penalty to breaking the muskets into skirmishers to stack them with the pikes. Maybe someone more familiar with the game mechanics can comment on this.

Engravings are schematic representations where usually several actions at a time are represented, they do not pretend to show real distances like they don´t represent the real number of soldiers, they are a bit like miniature games.
In real live pikemen would open their ranks to leave musketeers pass through, but in real live you don´t get turns to move either. The game is an abstraction.
Musketeers can´t be deployed as skirmishers in the game, only light infantry like arquebussiers. i find that historically correct, but it is moddable.
I am still starting to test the game against human players, the real contest to see if the game really feels historically right or not, but to me the real issue so far is not the shot/pike combination but the slow movement of pike blocks in early scenarios.

 

[Gnaeus]

Engravings are schematic representations where usually several actions at a time are represented, they do not pretend to show real distances like they don´t represent the real number of soldiers, they are a bit like miniature games.

I don't think that the engravings are to scale, but they provide some evidence of overall relationships, sometimes by eyewitnesses. I've seen them used by military historians. Whatever weight you put on them, they do suggest that muskets and pikes should be sharing the same hex within the scale of the game.

In real live pikemen would open their ranks to leave musketeers pass through, but in real live you don´t get turns to move either. The game is an abstraction.

Do you have some sources on this? I think there are at least a couple of tactical manuals that survive, but I don't know whether they cover the early period. Maybe Nicholas Bell knows.

I don't have a problem with abstraction; every model is an abstraction. I just haven't decided whether this is the most accurate one within the limitations of the game engine. The pike/shot relationship is a pretty important aspect of the period and worth getting as close to right as we can.

If, as you suggest, muskets could move freely through pikes, that's another reason for questioning the model.

I guess I'm going to have to take a look at the references in Nicholas' posts.

 

[Aryaman13]

I don't think that the engravings are to scale, but they provide some evidence of overall relationships, sometimes by eyewitnesses. I've seen them used by military historians. Whatever weight you put on them, they do suggest that muskets and pikes should be sharing the same hex within the scale of the game.



Do you have some sources on this? I think there are at least a couple of tactical manuals that survive, but I don't know whether they cover the early period. Maybe Nicholas Bell knows.

I don't have a problem with abstraction; every model is an abstraction. I just haven't decided whether this is the most accurate one within the limitations of the game engine. The pike/shot relationship is a pretty important aspect of the period and worth getting as close to right as we can.

If, as you suggest, muskets could move freely through pikes, that's another reason for questioning the model.

I guess I'm going to have to take a look at the references in Nicholas' posts.

Engravings are used by military historians, yes, but they are not a good source for tactical warfare, military manuals and first hand accounts of battles are much better for that.
As for musketeers moving through pikes, it is standard, not only for them, but for any unit moving through another one in any period in which those manouvers are used, for the game time period Sancho de Londoño is a useful tactic manual writer.

 

[rahamy]

I disagree because of the game scale, 100 meters/hex 10-15 min/turn. If the scale were 25 meters/4 minutes, maybe. I must admit that I was disappointed that a smaller scale was not used for this game.

The decision was made from the perspective of the "series" approach, as REN is not intended to be the only game put out...

With that said, if someone wants to do smaller scale stuff drop me a line...as with the Waterloo Expansion company level games, we may be able to work something out.

 

[Gnaeus]

As for musketeers moving through pikes, it is standard, not only for them, but for any unit moving through another one in any period in which those manouvers are used, for the game time period Sancho de Londoño is a useful tactic manual writer.

Thanks for the reference. The Spanish Wiki has some good background on him. I found his Discourse on the web, in Spanish. My limited Spanish certainly won't be up to that, however. For anyone more fluent, his writings are definitely worth checking out.

For those with broader interests, I also found "The World of Camp and Train: Women's Changing Roles in Early Modern Armies," which quotes de Londono on the necessity of camp followers:

"For, accepting the fact that well organised states allow such persons in order to avoid worse disorders, in no state is it as necessary to allow them as in this one of free, strong and vigorous men, who might otherwise commit crimes against the local people, molesting their daughters, sisters and wives."

I'm studying this further to assess whether HPS has assigned the right factors to the Neopolitan Puttane units. For some reason, HPS has given them javelins, while I was under the impression that their preferred weapon was the stiletto.

 

[Nicholas Bell]

The decision was made from the perspective of the "series" approach, as REN is not intended to be the only game put out

Okay, but you will have the same scale problem if you go Medieval or do the 30 Years War. (I would say 100 meter hexes would work for wars 1690 or later). It's just the wrong choice for this period unless the engine is modified to allow for additional abstractions. Apart from what I discussed above, there is also the fact that units normally were spaced at 50 paces, not 100. The 50 paces were deemed enough for passage of horse units and skirmishers - without interfering with the pike and shot formations. So units should not be disrupted when these units move through.

It seems apparent from my perspective that REN was shoe-horned to fit into the engine without proper consideration of the historical facts. Redoing it at a smaller scale at this point would be quite an endeavor. Not sure I have the stomach for it. I'd rather see the scale maintained and the program altered to account for the abstractions necessary.

 

[Aryaman13]

Okay, but you will have the same scale problem if you go Medieval or do the 30 Years War. (I would say 100 meter hexes would work for wars 1690 or later). It's just the wrong choice for this period unless the engine is modified to allow for additional abstractions. Apart from what I discussed above, there is also the fact that units normally were spaced at 50 paces, not 100. The 50 paces were deemed enough for passage of horse units and skirmishers - without interfering with the pike and shot formations. So units should not be disrupted when these units move through.

It seems apparent from my perspective that REN was shoe-horned to fit into the engine without proper consideration of the historical facts. Redoing it at a smaller scale at this point would be quite an endeavor. Not sure I have the stomach for it. I'd rather see the scale maintained and the program altered to account for the abstractions necessary.

There is no only scale problems, the more i look into scenarios the more wrong details I found, however the scenario editor looks very versatile, almost everything can be modded. for instance, I think you can modified scenarios adding large skirmishers units that can be placed in the same hex as pikemen. To me another issue is how slow is pike block movement in earlu scenarios, however that can also be modded. IMO if the game is succesful we will see gamers adapting scenarios individually with thier own rules and scales.

 

[Lord_Valentai]

The problem with making the hexes smaller and such is that large battles become very, very hard to do. The EAW games get cumbersome over 10,000 a side because of the companies.

 

[trauth116]

The problem with making the hexes smaller and such is that large battles become very, very hard to do. The EAW games get cumbersome over 10,000 a side because of the companies.

That is an interesting observation - in REN there are some pretty big maps, but also some very small maps- some of which on my screen res setting won't even cover the entire window they are so small in 2d (which doesn't mean that I find it unmanageably so -but that you can find some scenarios where you might have some off map black space... particularly the Marciano scenarios iirc. And others you have a big map to where the armies are deployed ratio - like the Flodden scenarios.

And then there are scenarios like Gravelines (or the Gravelines variants t obe specific) where the scenario is basically an extended river crossing and get away scenario - with a lone east to west map -and a lot of space to cover... another example of this would be the Jodoigne scenarios.... another one which is generally the Spanish trying to keep the Dutch from running away type of thing.