This thread is to explore future implementation of mixed
weapon units in REN, and is motivated by the comments
posted by Richard at:
http://www.wargame.ch/board/macgc/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9844
(Thanks to trauth116 for pointing out this link.)
The basic thrust of Richard’s post is that he tried to
model mixed weapon units and doubts that they are viable.
I conclude that the problem is not mixed weapon units, but
that the game engine has not yet been adjusted to model
mixed weapon units. After all, mixed weapon units were
common fixtures in the Age of Shot and Pike. REN should
model them.
Richard writes:
"I tested the feasibility of combined pike/shot units
during the design stage, and
have also given this further thought since the game's
release. It's likely that
I'll create some alternative scenarios with mixed arm units
for those players
who wish to try them out."
This is good news. However, without suitable adjustment of
the combat algorithms in REN, one wonders about the success
of the effort.
"Nevertheless, after conducting various tests, I wasn't
particularly satisfied
with how combined mixed weapon units functioned, and
doubted whether they'd be a
viable alternative approach to "pure" (ie. separate) pike
and shot units."
As above, I wouldn’t conclude that mixed weapon units are
broken. I would conclude that the game engine in REN needs
to be changed to model mixed weapon units.
"Please consider the following:"
"1./ The shot element would often act independently of the
pike, skirmishing with
the enemy while the pikemen were kept in reserve, as a
rallying point for the
shot if, for instance, cavalry approached. In some
instances (eg. Ceresoles) the
opposing arquebusiers skirmished for some hours before the
main battle began. A
"combined arms" approach would prevent arquebusiers being
detached as
independent skirmishers that were effectively detachments
operating completely
freely and often at some distance from the pikemen."
If everybody here has followed my other posts, you will see
that I have been quite unsuccessful in getting anybody to
identify a significant battle where the shot was detached
in the midst of battle and acted independently of the pike. If it were
true that shot would "often act independently", then we
should be swimming in examples. As a minimum, I’d say for
every 2 battles we examine, one of them should illustrate
shot being detached from a mixed weapon heavy infantry unit
in the midst of battle. But we don’t have that. I’ll
repeat part of an earlier post I made.
Consider Sir Charles Oman’s classic "A History of the Art
of War in the Sixteenth Century". Of the 20 battles with
figures depicting deployments, only one, Ceresole, pg. 233,
shows skirmish lines. And, unlike the REN scenario
"041.Cerisoles_a", the skirmish lines were actually
deployed as part of the battle maneuver.
Richard says that mixed weapon heavy infantry units would
be unable to detach arquebus as independent skirmishers.
Hey, I’m easy and constructive. Just below that hunk of
earlier post I recommended that "... mixed weapon units
should be able to detach elements of their
arquebus/musketry for independent action in the midst of
the game."
Please note. Mixed weapon heavy infantry units are not
broken, REN simply does not model them yet.
Richard writes:
"2./ Tactically, even when supposedly operating as part of
a single large
combined-arms "unit", the arquebusier sleeves (mangas) were
mobile sub-units
that could be redeployed to cover the front/flanks of the
main pike cuadro. For
instance, they could be placed in front as "horns". So, to
reflect this
flexibility, I felt that the best way of representing the
arquebusiers was as
separate "pure" skirmisher sub-units rather than as merely
part of a larger unit
that would lack this historical flexibility."
The terms "mangas" and "cuadro" come from the Spanish use
of mixed weapon formations in tercio/squadrons. However,
even the largest tercio/squadron fit within a 100 meter
hex. To properly show the movements of the sleeves, you
would have to model a different scale. Perhaps 50 meter
hexes; but, personally, I think you would need 25 meter
hexes to do a decent model of the evolutions of the heavy
infantry blocks. However, it has been stated that by
rahamy (Rich Hamilton) that any scale change is not an
option. In addition, the pike blocks of the day were
surrounded on all sides by arquebus. See the plate
illustrating the Battle of Moncontour in Oman (or any of
many other engravings of the period). Also check out a
very entertaining and informative article by the noted game
designer, Richard Berg, at (long URL):
[http://www.c3iopscenter.com/documents/Great Battles of
History Forum Gustavus Adolphus t.pdf] (also see C3I issue 2;
at http://c3iopscenter.com/ )
which describes mixed weapon heavy infantry units. Berg
calls them, "... a square formation of tightly-packed
pikemen surrounded by several layers of musketeers, sort of
like Gunpowder frosting on a Pike Cake." Given that the
inner pike block was surrounded by arquebus, there could
not be too much in the way of maneuvers of arquebus
scurrying about the perimeter.
One of the numerous drawbacks I’ve illustrated in my posts
on the shortcomings of using multiple pure weapon units to
model mixed weapon heavy infantry, is that the ground scale
is wrong. Using multiple 100 m hexes for a single mixed
weapon heavy infantry formation will extend battle lines
beyond historical limits. This doesn’t mean that mixed
weapon heavy infantry units are broken. It simply means
that REN needs to model the formations used in the age of
Shot and Pike consistent with a 100 meter hex.
"3./ A combined unit would have a range of other drawbacks,
such as units that
were 50% or more pikemen running low on ammo and thus
suffering a morale
penalty. The combine unit would need to be "restricted",
otherwise any
skirmisher detachments to cover the front/flank of the main
body would consist
of pikemen as well as arquebusiers."
To address the first point: "running low on ammo", two
responses. Don’t apply the morale penalty to the pike,
just apply it to the shot in the combat calculations.
Simple. Second, "running low on ammo" should only occur
rarely to firearms of the time. Not because musketeers
carried tons of ammo, but because their rate of fire was
abysmal. In addition to Richard Berg’s comments in the PDF
above, see his section about "Light Infantry" on page 5 of
the GMT rulebook for "Lion of the North." Berg says,
"Between difficulties in loading and the inefficiency of
the matchlock mechanism, a musketeer who fired his weapon
more then 5 times in a battle was considered a veritable
gunslinger." Loss of ammo should be rare for firearms.
Since ammo depletion can be roughly controlled in the .pdt,
I relegated this issue lower down on my list of things that
ought to be fixed in REN. But, since it has come up:
I recommend 3 distinct lines in the .pdt for ammo depletion
-- for bow, for firearms, and for artillery. Do not try
to make one line serve all three types.
The second point above is "The combine unit would need to
be "restricted"... ". I would say that should be up to
the scenario designer on if he wants a given unit, pure
weapon or mixed weapon, to emit skirmishers. I’ll admit
I’m not a fan of skirmishers, since I don’t see cases
(except Ceresole) of skirmishers being deployed and
recalled in the midst of battle in the age of Shot and
Pike. But, I must repeat, as I mentioned above and in
other posts, I recommended that "... mixed weapon units
should be able to detach elements of
their arquebus/musketry for independent action in the midst
of the game." As can be gathered from my responses to both
points, mixed weapon heavy infantry units are not broken.
The game engine in REN needs to be adapted to the presence
of mixed weapon heavy infantry units on the battlefield.
"4./ A combined unit would need to have a reduced fire
factor - in tests this
appears to be ineffective to the extent of being pretty
much a waste of time,
considering the associated loss of melee bonus and the
possibility of going low
on ammo or drawing enemy fire."
From what I know about game design and modeling, combat
formulas and combat factors are not derived from absolute
principles. So, I have a problem with the assertion that
there "must" be a reduction. These numbers are all subject
to tweaking. Further, there does not need to be a loss of
melee bonus after arquebus fire in a mixed weapon heavy
infantry block, since it is the pike, and not the arquebus,
that engage in the melee. And, yes, anything that shoots
(or even moves nearby) is subject to defensive fire. That
is the way of warfare in the age of Shot and Pike. It was
a grisly, eye-to-eye showdown of the blocks. Most of the
casualties were caused by shot at nearly point blank range.
After the sides had enough of the carnage, the push of the
pike came. One side broke and ran. The push of the pike
was short and decisive. Mixed weapon heavy infantry must
be able to engage in mixed forms of combat - - it’s what
they trained for, and it was how they were equipped. The
Napoleonic battle model in the REN engine needs to be
adapted to the tactics of the age of Shot and Pike.
My deeper concern regarding comment 4 is that I fear that a
simplistic treatment of "mixed weapon units" would actually
treat them as "dual weapon units". That is, by the formulas,
every single man in a heavy infantry block would carry a
16 foot pike in one hand and a 5 foot, 20 pound musket in the
other. Hardly realistic. This is why I recommended that the
REN game model keep track of the number of musket and pike
in a given block by means of a "Shot Percentage" parameter.
Such a parameter would obviate the need for artificially
reducing fire factors in a properly modeled system.
"5./ A combined pike/shot unit would need to have its melee
bonus adjusted to
compensate for the proportion of the men armed with
firearms without bayonets
(which hadn't been invented). This would probably require
additional programming
time from JT, something that we're unlikely to get.
However, it may be feasible
to represent this reasonably well using the various melee
modifiers available in
the oob file and by continuing to use a combination of
"pure" pike units with
separate small S skirmisher units for those units with 80%
or more pikemen."
Yes, yes, YES! Exactly right! The Shot Percentage
parameter would not only impact the fire combat
calculations, it would also impact the melee combat
calculations. In fact, the cleanest way to handle the
program is to keep track of X number of shot and Y number
of polearms for each mixed weapon heavy infantry unit. The
X and Y are derived from the total number of men and the
Shot Percentage at the beginning of the scenario. After
that, X and Y losses are figured separately. This would
nicely model the fact that enemy fire combat on a mixed
weapon unit will hit the arquebus that surround the pike,
and nicely model that subsequent melee combat will kill the
polearms (because the arquebus will automatically get the
heck out of the way as the push of the pike occurs). Plus,
you can nicely model that artillery is apt to hit both shot
and pike in the block.
Regarding the speculations about programming time, I take
my lead from rahamy (Rich Hamilton). He says to keep the
feedback coming (and keep it constructive). Rich has not
been shy about saying that certain model changes are
impossible; for example, a scale reduction is right out. I
trust Rich
when he said that "... further engine
enhancements are not likely to appear until we have a
second game ready to go.
The remainder of the post by Richard regards house rules
and the current REN game engine. No comment.
There are certain things that one expects to see in a
wargame based on its subject. For Germany, WWII, you
expect to see panzers. For the Punic Wars, you expect to
see elephants. For a game on Musket & Pike warfare, well...,
I expect to see blocks of musket and pike. By the
way, it would be way kewl to make a 3-D figure of the mixed
weapon unit, musket & pike block, just like we see in the
period engravings. You know what I mean; a whole forest of
pikes sticking up, and surrounded by musketeers.
I appreciate the comments by Richard. He has worked
mightily to adapt to the REN game engine. Unfortunately,
the current REN game engine is not up to it. This is why I
started these threads. If I could have gotten it done by
tweaking the .oob and .pdt, I never would have posted.
Mixed weapon units are, in fact, not viable, given the
current state of the REN game engine. But, rather than
abandon the notion of mixed weapon units, why not adjust
the engine to model them? I feel the engine needs less
Napoleon and more Borgia. Mixed weapon units were common
fixtures in the Age of Shot and Pike and REN should model
them.
weapon units in REN, and is motivated by the comments
posted by Richard at:
http://www.wargame.ch/board/macgc/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9844
(Thanks to trauth116 for pointing out this link.)
The basic thrust of Richard’s post is that he tried to
model mixed weapon units and doubts that they are viable.
I conclude that the problem is not mixed weapon units, but
that the game engine has not yet been adjusted to model
mixed weapon units. After all, mixed weapon units were
common fixtures in the Age of Shot and Pike. REN should
model them.
Richard writes:
"I tested the feasibility of combined pike/shot units
during the design stage, and
have also given this further thought since the game's
release. It's likely that
I'll create some alternative scenarios with mixed arm units
for those players
who wish to try them out."
This is good news. However, without suitable adjustment of
the combat algorithms in REN, one wonders about the success
of the effort.
"Nevertheless, after conducting various tests, I wasn't
particularly satisfied
with how combined mixed weapon units functioned, and
doubted whether they'd be a
viable alternative approach to "pure" (ie. separate) pike
and shot units."
As above, I wouldn’t conclude that mixed weapon units are
broken. I would conclude that the game engine in REN needs
to be changed to model mixed weapon units.
"Please consider the following:"
"1./ The shot element would often act independently of the
pike, skirmishing with
the enemy while the pikemen were kept in reserve, as a
rallying point for the
shot if, for instance, cavalry approached. In some
instances (eg. Ceresoles) the
opposing arquebusiers skirmished for some hours before the
main battle began. A
"combined arms" approach would prevent arquebusiers being
detached as
independent skirmishers that were effectively detachments
operating completely
freely and often at some distance from the pikemen."
If everybody here has followed my other posts, you will see
that I have been quite unsuccessful in getting anybody to
identify a significant battle where the shot was detached
in the midst of battle and acted independently of the pike. If it were
true that shot would "often act independently", then we
should be swimming in examples. As a minimum, I’d say for
every 2 battles we examine, one of them should illustrate
shot being detached from a mixed weapon heavy infantry unit
in the midst of battle. But we don’t have that. I’ll
repeat part of an earlier post I made.
Consider Sir Charles Oman’s classic "A History of the Art
of War in the Sixteenth Century". Of the 20 battles with
figures depicting deployments, only one, Ceresole, pg. 233,
shows skirmish lines. And, unlike the REN scenario
"041.Cerisoles_a", the skirmish lines were actually
deployed as part of the battle maneuver.
Richard says that mixed weapon heavy infantry units would
be unable to detach arquebus as independent skirmishers.
Hey, I’m easy and constructive. Just below that hunk of
earlier post I recommended that "... mixed weapon units
should be able to detach elements of their
arquebus/musketry for independent action in the midst of
the game."
Please note. Mixed weapon heavy infantry units are not
broken, REN simply does not model them yet.
Richard writes:
"2./ Tactically, even when supposedly operating as part of
a single large
combined-arms "unit", the arquebusier sleeves (mangas) were
mobile sub-units
that could be redeployed to cover the front/flanks of the
main pike cuadro. For
instance, they could be placed in front as "horns". So, to
reflect this
flexibility, I felt that the best way of representing the
arquebusiers was as
separate "pure" skirmisher sub-units rather than as merely
part of a larger unit
that would lack this historical flexibility."
The terms "mangas" and "cuadro" come from the Spanish use
of mixed weapon formations in tercio/squadrons. However,
even the largest tercio/squadron fit within a 100 meter
hex. To properly show the movements of the sleeves, you
would have to model a different scale. Perhaps 50 meter
hexes; but, personally, I think you would need 25 meter
hexes to do a decent model of the evolutions of the heavy
infantry blocks. However, it has been stated that by
rahamy (Rich Hamilton) that any scale change is not an
option. In addition, the pike blocks of the day were
surrounded on all sides by arquebus. See the plate
illustrating the Battle of Moncontour in Oman (or any of
many other engravings of the period). Also check out a
very entertaining and informative article by the noted game
designer, Richard Berg, at (long URL):
[http://www.c3iopscenter.com/documents/Great Battles of
History Forum Gustavus Adolphus t.pdf] (also see C3I issue 2;
at http://c3iopscenter.com/ )
which describes mixed weapon heavy infantry units. Berg
calls them, "... a square formation of tightly-packed
pikemen surrounded by several layers of musketeers, sort of
like Gunpowder frosting on a Pike Cake." Given that the
inner pike block was surrounded by arquebus, there could
not be too much in the way of maneuvers of arquebus
scurrying about the perimeter.
One of the numerous drawbacks I’ve illustrated in my posts
on the shortcomings of using multiple pure weapon units to
model mixed weapon heavy infantry, is that the ground scale
is wrong. Using multiple 100 m hexes for a single mixed
weapon heavy infantry formation will extend battle lines
beyond historical limits. This doesn’t mean that mixed
weapon heavy infantry units are broken. It simply means
that REN needs to model the formations used in the age of
Shot and Pike consistent with a 100 meter hex.
"3./ A combined unit would have a range of other drawbacks,
such as units that
were 50% or more pikemen running low on ammo and thus
suffering a morale
penalty. The combine unit would need to be "restricted",
otherwise any
skirmisher detachments to cover the front/flank of the main
body would consist
of pikemen as well as arquebusiers."
To address the first point: "running low on ammo", two
responses. Don’t apply the morale penalty to the pike,
just apply it to the shot in the combat calculations.
Simple. Second, "running low on ammo" should only occur
rarely to firearms of the time. Not because musketeers
carried tons of ammo, but because their rate of fire was
abysmal. In addition to Richard Berg’s comments in the PDF
above, see his section about "Light Infantry" on page 5 of
the GMT rulebook for "Lion of the North." Berg says,
"Between difficulties in loading and the inefficiency of
the matchlock mechanism, a musketeer who fired his weapon
more then 5 times in a battle was considered a veritable
gunslinger." Loss of ammo should be rare for firearms.
Since ammo depletion can be roughly controlled in the .pdt,
I relegated this issue lower down on my list of things that
ought to be fixed in REN. But, since it has come up:
I recommend 3 distinct lines in the .pdt for ammo depletion
-- for bow, for firearms, and for artillery. Do not try
to make one line serve all three types.
The second point above is "The combine unit would need to
be "restricted"... ". I would say that should be up to
the scenario designer on if he wants a given unit, pure
weapon or mixed weapon, to emit skirmishers. I’ll admit
I’m not a fan of skirmishers, since I don’t see cases
(except Ceresole) of skirmishers being deployed and
recalled in the midst of battle in the age of Shot and
Pike. But, I must repeat, as I mentioned above and in
other posts, I recommended that "... mixed weapon units
should be able to detach elements of
their arquebus/musketry for independent action in the midst
of the game." As can be gathered from my responses to both
points, mixed weapon heavy infantry units are not broken.
The game engine in REN needs to be adapted to the presence
of mixed weapon heavy infantry units on the battlefield.
"4./ A combined unit would need to have a reduced fire
factor - in tests this
appears to be ineffective to the extent of being pretty
much a waste of time,
considering the associated loss of melee bonus and the
possibility of going low
on ammo or drawing enemy fire."
From what I know about game design and modeling, combat
formulas and combat factors are not derived from absolute
principles. So, I have a problem with the assertion that
there "must" be a reduction. These numbers are all subject
to tweaking. Further, there does not need to be a loss of
melee bonus after arquebus fire in a mixed weapon heavy
infantry block, since it is the pike, and not the arquebus,
that engage in the melee. And, yes, anything that shoots
(or even moves nearby) is subject to defensive fire. That
is the way of warfare in the age of Shot and Pike. It was
a grisly, eye-to-eye showdown of the blocks. Most of the
casualties were caused by shot at nearly point blank range.
After the sides had enough of the carnage, the push of the
pike came. One side broke and ran. The push of the pike
was short and decisive. Mixed weapon heavy infantry must
be able to engage in mixed forms of combat - - it’s what
they trained for, and it was how they were equipped. The
Napoleonic battle model in the REN engine needs to be
adapted to the tactics of the age of Shot and Pike.
My deeper concern regarding comment 4 is that I fear that a
simplistic treatment of "mixed weapon units" would actually
treat them as "dual weapon units". That is, by the formulas,
every single man in a heavy infantry block would carry a
16 foot pike in one hand and a 5 foot, 20 pound musket in the
other. Hardly realistic. This is why I recommended that the
REN game model keep track of the number of musket and pike
in a given block by means of a "Shot Percentage" parameter.
Such a parameter would obviate the need for artificially
reducing fire factors in a properly modeled system.
"5./ A combined pike/shot unit would need to have its melee
bonus adjusted to
compensate for the proportion of the men armed with
firearms without bayonets
(which hadn't been invented). This would probably require
additional programming
time from JT, something that we're unlikely to get.
However, it may be feasible
to represent this reasonably well using the various melee
modifiers available in
the oob file and by continuing to use a combination of
"pure" pike units with
separate small S skirmisher units for those units with 80%
or more pikemen."
Yes, yes, YES! Exactly right! The Shot Percentage
parameter would not only impact the fire combat
calculations, it would also impact the melee combat
calculations. In fact, the cleanest way to handle the
program is to keep track of X number of shot and Y number
of polearms for each mixed weapon heavy infantry unit. The
X and Y are derived from the total number of men and the
Shot Percentage at the beginning of the scenario. After
that, X and Y losses are figured separately. This would
nicely model the fact that enemy fire combat on a mixed
weapon unit will hit the arquebus that surround the pike,
and nicely model that subsequent melee combat will kill the
polearms (because the arquebus will automatically get the
heck out of the way as the push of the pike occurs). Plus,
you can nicely model that artillery is apt to hit both shot
and pike in the block.
Regarding the speculations about programming time, I take
my lead from rahamy (Rich Hamilton). He says to keep the
feedback coming (and keep it constructive). Rich has not
been shy about saying that certain model changes are
impossible; for example, a scale reduction is right out. I
trust Rich
when he said that "... further engine enhancements are not likely to appear until we have a
second game ready to go.
The remainder of the post by Richard regards house rules
and the current REN game engine. No comment.
There are certain things that one expects to see in a
wargame based on its subject. For Germany, WWII, you
expect to see panzers. For the Punic Wars, you expect to
see elephants. For a game on Musket & Pike warfare, well...,
I expect to see blocks of musket and pike.
By the way, it would be way kewl to make a 3-D figure of the mixed
weapon unit, musket & pike block, just like we see in the
period engravings. You know what I mean; a whole forest of
pikes sticking up, and surrounded by musketeers.
I appreciate the comments by Richard. He has worked
mightily to adapt to the REN game engine. Unfortunately,
the current REN game engine is not up to it. This is why I
started these threads. If I could have gotten it done by
tweaking the .oob and .pdt, I never would have posted.
Mixed weapon units are, in fact, not viable, given the
current state of the REN game engine. But, rather than
abandon the notion of mixed weapon units, why not adjust
the engine to model them? I feel the engine needs less
Napoleon and more Borgia. Mixed weapon units were common
fixtures in the Age of Shot and Pike and REN should model
them.
