REN Mixed Weapon Units

[decaf]

I preface my remarks by saying that I like REN. It has fired my
imagination and caused me to read the military history of the 1500-1700
era. This is a good thing. But, as I read, I see issues with the
model of Musket & Pike: Renaissance. REN needs more work to reproduce
the tactics of the age of Shot & Pike. The Napoleonic model is not
adequate. Since HPS is interested in more feedback, here it is.

At the heart of any game/model are the units. In the age of Shot &
Pike the prevalent units are foot and horse (with some sprinkles of
artillery). My concern here is the weapon models for the infantry.
There were pure weapon units of arquebus. But, there were mixtures of
pike and arquebus (and pike + halberd + arquebus) throughout the era.

Does this matter in the current REN game system? Yes it does.

Consider unit composition in the age of Shot & Pike. Check out Ben
Hull’s English rules for "Paris is Worth a Mass", which models Dreux,
1562 and Ivry, 1590, at: http://www.benhull.com/pwm_rules_v1.pdf
I’ll quote the description of unit types:

A = Arquebusiers, 200-300 men, Various Nationalites, Arquebus/Carbine
equipped, lightly armored Infantry
S = Swiss, 1500-2000 men, 90 % Pikemen, 10 % Arqubusiers
L = Landsknechts, 1500-2000 men, 80 % Pikemen, 20 % Arqubusiers
T = Tercio (Spanish), 1200-1800 men, 70 % Pikemen, 30 % Arqubusiers
F = French Regulars, 1000-1500 men, 50 % Pikemen, 50 % Arqubusiers
H = Huguenot Militia, 1000-1500 men, All arquebusiers
E = Enfants Perdu, about 200, All arquebusiers

The mixtures of arquebus to pike within an infantry unit are typical
for the age. Those are not typos. 10% up to 50 % of a "pike unit"
are, in fact, not pike, but arquebus. And, yes, French Regulars have a
higher proportion of arquebus than a Tercio. Since arquebus is ranged
fire, it simply can not be modeled as a plain "pike unit". Other
references show even higher arquebus percentages through the 1600’s.

Ben Hull is not the only source showing mixed weapons. Check out the
"Pamphlet.jpg" at http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pike_and_shot
and look at Steven Thomas:
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1494/org.htm
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1568/org.htm
http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1618/org.htm

"Pike" units were truly mixed weapon units. They drilled together,
maneuvered together, and fought together (and routed together). The
arqubusiers were arranged in precise locations relative to the pikes.
For example, see Arnold’s "The Renaissance at War", pg 97-98.
"Sleeves" were arrangements of shot on the flanks of the pikes (see
Pamphlet.jpg, link above). Tercio "Horns" were mini-blocks of shot at
the corners of the pike blocks. The arrangements were built to provide
"walls" and fields of fire. The result was walking versions of
castles, built of men instead of bricks and mortar. For some pictures
of shot & pike (mixed weapon) formations, see:

http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1494/tactics.htm
and Dr. Picouet’s
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TactiqueUk.html?200911

Engravings from the era show the checkerboard patterns these mixed
weapon formations made when deployed across the battlefield. These
"walking castles" advanced and shot up the other side. After a grisly
interval of swapping lead, they would collide for the "push of the
pike". One side would break, and the other would plunder the remains.

Today we make a big deal of combined arms warfare and integrated combat
systems. They had it back in 1500.

What about the model in REN? Here we have "pure weapon" units instead
of mixed weapon units. A pike unit is just that, no ranged fire
allowed. And heaven help a pure arquebus unit that is charged by
cavalry. From the material above, a mixed weapon infantry unit should
have ranged fire and be resilient to cavalry charges.

Yes, we can pretend we have mixed weapon units by stacking a pike and
an arquebus. But the result is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
Foremost, they behave like a pair of units instead of like a single
unit. One unit can rout, while the other stands its ground. While a
human will try to maintain the pretense, and keep the pair of units
together, the AI doesn’t understand the REN model shortcoming. The AI
will happily strip the arquebus out of the pretend pike block in a move
that is "tactically impossible" for the age of Shot & Pike. Ranged
fire is another example. You can target either of the pair of units.
Whereas, in practice, one would be hard pressed to shoot at pikes
without hitting the "sleeves" of arquebus. And, please, don’t get me
started on the "Xtreme Disorder" behavior I’ve written about in another
thread. The binding of disorder and formation in REN makes it
impossible to move stacked units, or to build stacked units, without
disordering.

It’s been suggested on the board that we can still pretend that two
units are one unit if we make the arquebus in a pike block into
skirmishers. It is true (although undocumented in the Users Manual)
that skirmishers are free of the "Xtreme Disorder" behavior. But, we
still have the other REN model shortcomings described above. Plus,
now, the arquebus will be skirmishers instead of part of the pike
block. This likely means combat modifiers for skirmishers. Plus, the
skirmisher arquebus don’t possess a facing and can move and shoot in
any direction.

I try to be constructive. What can be done about this?

As I suggested in the "Xtreme Disorder" thread, create a Pike &
Arquebus composite weapon type. I repeat this again because I wanted
to illustrate the historical motivation as well as explore some
implementation details.

For an example of a mixed weapon type, we see "Lance & Xbow" as weapon
type O in the REN weapon.dat file. However, it is not clear what the
relative weapon strength is between the lance and the crossbow. We can
find the crossbow strength vs. range values for weapon type O in any
.pdt file. But, there is nothing about strength of a lance in the .pdt
or the .oob file. There is a number called "melee bonus value" in the
.oob, but that seems to be supplemental to a basic melee value. The
.pdt and the .oob only get us part way to a destination.

As an experiment I hacked the "weapon.dat" file. Note that "Arquebus"
appears twice -- both as type "I" and type "M". So I edited type "I"
into "Pike-Arquebus". Then I hacked the Army List 1a .oob to make some
"I" units. I could drop a few units into a toy scenario with the
editor, and then play it with REN. It seemed to work. At least, REN
didn’t crash. But, I can’t trust a hacked combat result without the
internal knowledge of the combat strengths. It seems possible to
reverse engineer the combat code, and maybe back out what a pike melee
strength is. It’s not clear if what I did was just cosmetic, or if
there are numbers "under the hood" that are not reflected in either the
.pdt or the .oob. My guess is that what I did only changed some
display text; and that is frustrating.

I encourage any and all to try that experiment. If you do, be sure to
back up the weapon.dat file, and make copies of any .oob or .pdt files
you choose to edit.

I'm guessing that all infantry melee is treated identically in REN.
That is, all pointed sticks are equal. Halberd, lance, pike, spear,
and sword are all the same. After all, they don’t have (non-ranged)
entries in the .pdt or in the .oob. If REN has different numbers for
these weapons internally, I would sure like to know what they are.

Looking at "Lance & Xbow" and trying to see how it can help model
"Pike-Arquebus" gives a disconnect at the .oob file. There are no
specific strengths for the weapon types. And the .pdt only specifies
ranged weapon strength.

To see for yourself, here is a challenge. Try to triple the combat
strength of a sword unit (Type S) without merely tripling the number of
men. It’s not in the .pdt. A weapon type is required in the infantry
unit line in the .oob file. But there is no melee strength. There is
a "melee bonus value" that looks like it applies a modifier similar to
the morale values. So, what "melee bonus value" is needed to triple a
sword unit?

For these reasons I repeat my recommendation that HPS supply a new
mixed weapon type: "Pike-Arquebus". HPS would know how to get the
relative strengths right. If it is possible to gin one up with the PDT
and OOB, please, HPS, let us know.

If it turns out that a new "Pike-Arquebus" type can be implemented by
HPS, it will likely need a new parameter in the PDT and/or OOB file.
Call this parameter "Shot Percentage", a number ranging from 0 to 100,
that specifies the percentage of men armed with a ranged weapon and not
with a "pointed stick". As described above, the arquebus Shot
Percentage through 1500-1700 should range from 10% to 70% (late 1500)
(and higher in the next century). Shot Percentage = 0 would mean pure
pike, and Shot Percentage = 100 would mean pure arquebus. And, yes,
it would be possible to extend this notion of mixed weapon type to
other combos, like "Halberd-Arquebus" (although I'm not sure how much
that combo appeared -- any English Civil War experts?).

Bottom Line: The Pike/Shot formations of the age displayed unit
cohesion, and should be treated as units. We’ll need a new "Shot
Percentage" parameter to reflect the weapon proportions.

Very best wishes . . .

 

[Nicholas Bell]

Could not have stated it better myself - wait a minute, I already did - in another thread . No matter, it's nice to have someone agree with me

Not to be pessimistic, but I'm not holding my breath on this getting fixed in the first patch. For one, Rich White, the gentleman who created the scenarios, is no slouch on the research end of the process. The playtesters are all well know for their abilities, and although this era may not be their specialty, I doubt they would fail to do a bit of reading themselves on the topic. Which leads me to speculate that it has more to do with program coding rather than knowledge. JT's method of coding changes into programs has always been very incremental. Although never fast enough for us, it did does eventually add up to some very significant changes over the years. Again, not being privy to the making of this game, this all mere speculation on my part. Maybe the team totally disagrees with our perspective and this is how they wanted to depict formations. Who knows?

 

[Lord_Valentai]

I mentioned and tested a combined unit type myself. I think that HPS was looking for was the ability to give you the flexibility of using all the units separately. As it is, they recommend using Arquebus skirmishers mixed in with the pike blocks to simulate this.

 

[rahamy]

Post noted.

Some things to understand when discussing this game, and the new series. This was a big gamble on our part...a lot of resources were put forth to pull it off, with the gaming market dominated by WWII and modern content, it was very questionable how it would be received. It was quite possible that no one would buy it, then we would have had a total loss. Fortunately it has been relatively well received.

Nick also hit the nail on the head, that programming time is a primary factor in the final product. It took a significant amount of work on my part to first convince JT that this venture was worth pursuing, and then secondly select the programming work that would give us the most mileage for REN and future titles. REN was essentially in development for over 5 years, in one form or another - with the coding in place for over 2.

JT takes an incremental approach, so further refinements are possible and likely, but will be a while in coming. We are moving forward with the creation of the 3D graphics now, but further engine enhancements are not likely to appear until we have a second game ready to go.

I guess the bottom line is, we want to provide the gaming community with a wide variety of topics to enjoy...but we have a shoestring budget to do it on...and everyone but JT has a full time job to contend with. So please keep the feedback coming, but please try to be as positive and constructive as possible, so you don't demoralize us!

And always feel free to write us at Support at hpssims.com

 

[jimcrowley]

Post noted.

JT takes an incremental approach, so further refinements are possible and likely, but will be a while in coming. We are moving forward with the creation of the 3D graphics now, but further engine enhancements are not likely to appear until we have a second game ready to go.

I guess the bottom line is, we want to provide the gaming community with a wide variety of topics to enjoy...but we have a shoestring budget to do it on...and everyone but JT has a full time job to contend with. So please keep the feedback coming, but please try to be as positive and constructive as possible, so you don't demoralize us!

The news about 3D graphics is great - this will make a huge difference.

Changes to the engine being tied to the next realease is obviously not such good news as this is likely to be, what?, a year or more. Really no chance for an incremental patch?

As for criticism, I think everyone who has posted has shown much enthusiasm for REN and are only being critical because of their evident support for the game -self included.

 

[hrik]

Mixed weapon units is something I'd actually considered for REN - and indeed I'm currently in the process of creating some alternative oobs and scenarios with combined pike/arquebus/halberd units. These will then need some testing done, buty they'll probably be ready for release in the next patch.

For the first half of the period covered by REN, it's probably useful to retain "pure" units for a variety of reasons, although creating some alternative scenarios with mixed units might be feasible too.

For the later 16th century, having "mixed weapon" units is certainly something worthwhile including. At this point, I'm planning to create alternative scenarios with "combined weapon" units for the various FWR and Dutch Revolt scenarios. Once I've received feedback on these I'll decide whether to do alternatives for the earlier battles.

Nevertheless, there are a number of significant advantages in retaining "pure" units - for instance there were plenty of occasions (eg. Ceresoles) when the shot operated independently of the pikemen, who were incapable of skirmishing and would thus be kept back in reserve as a rallying point for the shot if cavalry approached. Also, with the "pure" system, skirmisher manga subunits can be deployed in front of the pikeblock, on its flanks or else stacked with the main pike unit. Tactically, 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 their flexibility, probably the best way of representing the arquebusiers is as separate "pure" skirmisher sub-units rather than as merely part of a larger unit.

But if a "mixed weapon" unit is used, then any "skirmisher" subunits detached would effectively consist mostly of pikemen - they'd still have the same fire factor as the main unit and would melee as effectively too.

 

[Aryaman13]

I have already played almost a dozen of battles in PBEM (I only play against the AI to get started) and so far my impression is that the biggest problem in game terms is the proliferation of detachments swarming all around the map.
I think a good solution for the skirmishers problem would be to make arquebussiers skirmisher units but resticted, so that they can´t deploy small units, that way a large arquebussier unit could be deployed together with a pike unit. Historically arquebussiers were not deployed "in line", but in loose groups, only with the arrival of the musket shot units started to deploy in line, well a line 10 ranks deep.
So, for instance, we have a 600 pike unit and a 600 arquebussier unit that is skirmisher, not light infantry, and that can´t send individual detachments.
Another problem with the gameplay is that units in some scenarios are unbalanced, a few large pike units unable to cover a battle line, with a larger number of smaller arquebussier units that besides can be subdivided. A more balanced approach would be needed, witha standard size for both arquebussiers and pike units.
Finally, make cavalry restricted also, because right now the small detachments are running the whole map, battles ending in a feast of small detachments.

 

[hrik]

It's certainly feasible to create "large" arquebusier skirmisher units that can't subdivide, but if they're too big they'd lose their ability to skirmish effectively, so this would need to be taken into consideration.

I'm not sure off-hand how big a skirmisher unit can be without losing the ability to skirmish. I believe it may be modifiable in the pdt, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Aryaman13]

It's certainly feasible to create "large" arquebusier skirmisher units that can't subdivide, but if they're too big they'd lose their ability to skirmish effectively, so this would need to be taken into consideration.

I'm not sure off-hand how big a skirmisher unit can be without losing the ability to skirmish. I believe it may be modifiable in the pdt, but I'm not entirely sure.

They don´t need to be too large if we also reduce the size of pike units, so we have a more balanced OOB and the ability to create battlelines (something very difficult at some battles in which there are very few very large pike units)
What about cavalry, could be made restricted to avoid detachments?

 

[decaf]

Dear rahamy,

I’m right with you!

Pike and Shot is a niche era in a niche hobby -- it’s niche
squared. And nobody will see a commercial product if you can’t
keep on budget. I’m not surprised if there were lively
discussions regarding the viability of the project. I can see it
now: “Musket & Pike??! Thirty Years War?!! What are you
smoking?”

Please, don’t be demoralized. I’m completely sincere when I post
that I like REN. And, the reason I post is because I think there
will be a 1600-1700, and, maybe, even more. I’m sure you thought
of Agincourt and Frederick the Great. But, as a wargamer, the
reason I play is to recreate the battles and the decision
processes facing the commanders. So the modeling has to help
that mindset.

I’m keenly aware that there is a “window of opportunity” on
Musket & Pike. So, I appreciate your invitations for feedback.
There is another recent thread where you indicate that there
is no business case for retrofitting the REN advances to the
Napoleonic series. It the way things are. Perhaps it’s the
unspoken fear that Musket & Pike could also fall into that
category sooner rather than later, which leads to the “critical
enthusiasm” you hear from the REN fans. Please, don’t be
demoralized.

The economic realities cut both ways. It takes budget to
implement model changes. Yet, model changes can’t be ignored.
They have a linkage with sales and the wargamer mindset. In
theory you could rebuild the entire engine, recalibrate the
combat systems, and engineer the AI to have an unsurpassed
recreation of the Age of Shot and Pike. But the sales are not
likely to support a total approach (footnote at bottom). At the
risk of hyperbole, “you are dancing on the razor’s edge” of the
economic dynamic. I appreciate that.

But, the Age of Renaissance was a major flowering of intellectual
and cultural activities. The evolution in the art of war from
1500-1700 was unprecedented and remained so up to the 20th
century. We’re looking at the introduction of the PC. In this
case, PC means Personal Cannon. Something just as revolutionary
as a laptop. Gunpowder did lead, in turn, to the methods of Linear
Warfare that followed. There has to be some “give” in the old
engine and models to capture this Age.

[rhetorical mode on]

What fires my imagination? What makes me tingle all over?

What was it like to be in that heavy infantry block? To close to
within 50 yards, and then play a game of “chicken”, exchanging
fire, thinking about what a half-ounce arquebus ball would do you
your face. Then, the pikes are lowered, the blocks of humanity
slam into each other. Someone is going to break. And, when they
turn to run, it’s PAYDAY!

How was it possible to “break the square”? What tactics are
needed to make it happen and to avoid it? Why did the Tercio
develop the way it did? And, what caused it to be abandoned?
Can I see how knighthood had its last gasps, and evolved into
cavalry through the pressure of improving firearms?

This is why I game. I’ll bet it’s why you game, too.

[rhetorical mode off]

The good news is that I prioritized my feedback on REN to begin
with what, in my opinion, were the critical items. Those were
“Xtreme Disordering” and “No Mixed Weapon Units”. For me,
they *really* interfere with playing REN. I have additional
comments/feedback on REN. (Skirmishers, for example) My
remaining posts will be lower down on the “whine-o-meter”
(pat. pend.), but will still involve model elements.

I appreciate the “head’s up” regarding timing of model changes
being linked to a second game. I trust the fixes will be
retroactive to REN. While it’s disappointing to wait, I’m
keeping very busy reading about the period, and looking at how
other wargames model the period. Of course, this means more
ideas and feedback . . . .

Thanks for listening.

 

[decaf]

I’d like to explore some of the points hrik (Rich White) makes, because it
does lead to a behavior of mixed weapon units that might need to be in the
model.

"... plenty of occasions when the shot operated independently of the
pikemen."

Sure!! I would be equally unhappy if there was no capability to have a unit
composed solely of arquebus. I believe the game model should reflect what
happened on the battlefield in that age. Both pure and mixed weapon type
units have a role.

"... skirmisher manga subunits can be deployed in front of the pikeblock,
on its flanks or else stacked with the main pike unit."

Well, I’ve already addressed the drawbacks of pretending that a stack of two
units are one unit in my first post above. So I won’t be tedious and repeat
them. In addition, placement of arquebus skirmishers in front or on the sides
of a pure pike unit in different hexes doesn’t work for me either. Two reasons:

The ground scale is wrong. The arquebus was drawn up closely with one
another and with the pike. In addition to the images at:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pike_and_shot
check the scale of a 3000 man (!) Tercio at:
http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TactiqueUk.html?200911 .
It fits in a 100 meter hex; even the "horns". Using multiple 100 m hexes for
a single mixed weapon heavy infantry formation will extend battle lines
beyond historical limits.

The arquebus were in "close-order" and they fired forward. The front rank
would fire. Then each man pivoted to the right and moved to the rear rank.
The rest would move up, like a conveyor belt. See the commentary on
"Firing at the Steadfast" on pg. 16 in the Musket & Pike Battle Series Rules
by Ben Hull in GMT Game’s Living Rules at
http://www.gmtgames.com/mpgustav/GustavRules2.pdf
Such directed close-order fire is not consistent with an HPS 360-degree
field-of-fire skirmisher (which models Napoleonic open-order troops).

I do agree that arquebus would redeploy around the inner pike block. In
particular, the front rank arquebus (if there were any left after exchanging
fire for a while) would get out of the way before the push of the pike. But,
it must be recalled, these maneuvers would not have a model effect outside
a 100 meter hex. So, there is no requirement for distinct units. Hence, my
recommendation of mixed weapon units. At a 25 m hex scale, one would
have fine enough resolution to model the heavy infantry formation
evolutions. But, not at 100 m. And, the AI would need to be inhibited from
scattering the component sub-units to the four winds. (By the way, I agree
with Aryaman13’s comment regarding "... proliferation of detachments
swarming all around the map.")

Now, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about the Battle of Ceresole
(Cérisoles), April 11, 1544:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ceresole

Go about halfway down:

"The pike and shot infantry had by this time adopted a system in which
arquebusiers and pikemen were intermingled in combined units; both the
French and the Imperial infantry contained men with firearms interspersed
in the larger columns of pikemen.[46]"

The reference [46] is to Hall, who notes that this was a forerunner to later
practice where the arquebusiers would hide in the core of the heavy infantry
block upon enemy contact.

Let me continue with the Wikipedia quote:

"This combination of pikes and small arms made close-quarters fighting
extremely bloody.[47] The mixed infantry was normally placed in separate
clusters, with the arquebusiers on the flanks of a central column of pike;
at Ceresole, however, the French infantry had been arranged with the first
rank of pikemen followed immediately by a rank of arquebusiers, who were
ordered to hold their fire until the two columns met.[48] Montluc, who
claimed to have devised the scheme, wrote that:

"In this way we should kill all their captains in the front rank. But we
found that they were as ingenious as ourselves, for behind their first
line of pikes they had put pistoleers. Neither side fired till we were
touching--and then there was a wholesale slaughter: every shot told: the
whole front rank on each side went down.[49]"

Wow!! Powerful Stuff! This is why I like to game this era.

Hmmm...., doesn’t sound like light troops operating independently in open
order (skirmishers) to me! Ceresole sounds more like "mixed weapon units".

However, the reason I pursue Ceresole is to discuss a behavior of mixed
weapon units that might need to be in the model. Most of the references in
the Wikipedia article are to 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. Oman (1937), pg. 235:

"Del Vasto opened the fight by sending out a cloud of arquebusiers, with
whom he was well provided, to feel for the French, and if possible to find
and turn their flanks. Enghien replied by sending out 800 arquebusiers
from his French and Italian companies under Montluc to hold them back.
This skirmishing lasted nearly four hours."

Can a mixed weapon unit model this? Let's cut right to the chase:

My Recommendation:
If, and I stress the word "if", it is desired to depict the opening round of
Ceresole, then mixed weapon units should be able to detach elements of
their arquebus/musketry for independent action in the midst of the game.

Note that my wording is very careful. Unlike Rich, I do not advocate
skirmisher detachments from mixed-weapon units be composed of pike and
shot. It never occurred to me that would be envisioned. I don’t think
the heavy infantry formations of the day had much internal structure to
support detachments. At Ceresole the 7000 Landsnechts+Arquebus split into
two sections to meet a pair of threats. That was pretty much the limit of
command & control. (Oman, pg. 237, praises the tactical skill of the
commander in pulling it off.)

Quite frankly, I’d have no problem if the mixed weapon unit prohibited
detachments in the midst of the game. Let me repeat that last part,
"... in the midst of the game." From what I see in Oman, it was not a
battle evolution that occurred frequently. Even for Ceresole, there is
no big loss if the arquebus deployment is performed prior to starting the
scenario. Yes, there are many cases where arquebus/musketry was taken
from heavy infantry. There is even a term: "Commanded Muskets". But,
these were arrangements made as the armies deployed, and not in the
heat of battle.

Bottom Line:
One might want to allow mixed weapon units to detach part of their
arquebus/musketry.

And, let me take this opportunity to state that the scenarios in REN
are nothing short of glorious. There are a ton of them, covering all parts
of a very tumultuous age. The alternative scenarios are legitimate, "what
if" possibilities. The flavor present in the scenarios and OOB's are
what has fired my interest in this period. Please, do not let my comments
on improvements to the REN game engine be thought of as a negative
reflection on the craftsmanship and obvious love of the topic shown in the
scenarios.

 

[Aryaman13]

Note that my wording is very careful. Unlike Rich, I do not advocate skirmisher detachments from mixed-weapon units be composed of pike and shot. It never occurred to me that would be envisioned. I don’t think the heavy infantry formations of the day had much internal structure to support detachments.

In fact, detachments of shot and halberdiers were common. The shot would advance in loose order, followed by halberdiers that would form a circle where the shot could enter whenever enemy cavalry was on sight. In the French War of Religions this was done many times, and those circles proved efective even against the French Gendarmes.
I agree with some of your points, especially with the scale problem, that gives too long ranges, like 400 yards for muskets of 200 yards for arquebus. I don´t agree, however, with your mixed weapons unit. First, because it wasn´t really a unit, in battle the shot in a company was lumped together to form purely shot units, while the pikemen were also gathered from different companies, or even regiments, to form escuadrones, but more importantly, because the use of mixed units would result in a dull game, in which the use of different weapons would be washed out. IMO it would be better just to reduce the scale to 50 yards or less, or to pretend it has been already done.

 

[decaf]

Aryaman13 writes:

"In fact, detachments of shot and halberdiers were common. The shot would
advance in loose order, followed by halberdiers that would form a circle
where the shot could enter whenever enemy cavalry was on sight. In the
French War of Religions this was done many times, and those circles proved
efective even against the French Gendarmes."

Interesting! I love this kind of stuff. Can you recommend a reference where
I can read up on these circles?

Let me think some about the "dull game" effect. There may be a way to
spice it up.

 

[rahamy]

We're looking at this situation as I mentioned, but you won't see a scale reduction as that would require redoing all the maps & every scenario in the game. If someone is rich and wants to fund that work, great!, otherwise not going to happen. As with all of JT's games this is meant to be a series, so we have to keep the code somewhat "portable" in order to cover other time periods as well so we can get incremental change.

 

[Aryaman13]

Aryaman13 writes:

"In fact, detachments of shot and halberdiers were common. The shot would
advance in loose order, followed by halberdiers that would form a circle
where the shot could enter whenever enemy cavalry was on sight. In the
French War of Religions this was done many times, and those circles proved
efective even against the French Gendarmes."

Interesting! I love this kind of stuff. Can you recommend a reference where
I can read up on these circles?

Let me think some about the "dull game" effect. There may be a way to
spice it up.

Julio Albi "De Pavia a Rocroi" is a good secundary source, but in Spanish, primary sources also in Spanish, since I read about it in the campaigns of Parma in France. All the Pikemen in the arquebussier companies of a Spanish Tercio were also halberdiers, and in a Pike company also a number of them could double. Besides the unarmoured pikemen would be used to execute a flying enemy, they would drop their pikes and go out of the formation with their swords in hand. Finally, there is a type of soldier characteristic of the Spanish Tercios, the "Particular". Young noblemen that in other armies would serve as cavalry served as infantry, Particulares wore a high quality half armour, sword and dague and a pair of pistols. They fought commanding the arquebussier parties, engaging enemy skirmishers in close combat, and they were the "elite" of the Spanish army. I plan to represent them in a scenario I am working on.

 

[rahamy]

I plan to represent them in a scenario I am working on.

Excellent, love to see people digging into the editor!

 

[decaf]

Dear Aryaman11:

I must confess I don't read Spanish. Let's try a different way?

Can you refer to a specific battle and year in the French Religious
Wars where the circles you refer to were deployed from the
main heavy infantry formation?

With a battle and year, I can try to find an English reference that we
can share with the rest of the board.

 

[Aryaman13]

Dear Aryaman11:

I must confess I don't read Spanish. Let's try a different way?

Can you refer to a specific battle and year in the French Religious
Wars where the circles you refer to were deployed from the
main heavy infantry formation?

With a battle and year, I can try to find an English reference that we
can share with the rest of the board.

It was not a pitched battle, but a small action when Parma was marching from Coulommiers to Pontavert, November 11 1590, however Albi writes that it was a standard procedure for the arquebussiers to take shelter in a circle of halberdiers from enemy cavalry.
About the question of organical units you pointed in another post, I found a good example of my point. At the battle of Alcántara (1580) there were 6 Tercios present, the arquebussiers of the 6 units were detached to form a body of 2.100 men, divided in 7 sleeves to skirmish at the front, while the Pikemen were assembled in 3 escuadrones, 1 of them of veterans taking selected companies of 3 Tercios.
The Tercio/regiment at the time was more an administrative unit rather than a combat unit.

 

[Sgt_Rock]

Mixed weapon types in the OB are a must. Trying to corral players to use House Rules is really difficult.

I do know that arq did fight with cavalry so in some part there will have to be independent light units for that purpose. You are still going to have some separation on the lights.

But if the Pike weapon is anything like that of the Nap series then giving the Pike units a weapon instead is not impossible. Its value would have to based on the percentage of arq to pike of course.

Thus a unit that had a higher amount of pike to arq would have a weak fire value while one towards the end of the era would have a higher weapons rating.

My thoughts would be something like this:

Pike/Arq - value at 1 hex
70/30 - 2
60/40 - 3
50/50 - 4
40/60 - 5
30/70 - 6

Right now I think that the arq units are worth too much (7) but I am using the Nap series as a sample with the Nap Musket being worth 5 in most of that series games. I dont know if the REN engine calculates the fire/losses differently but anyway you get my drift.

Pike in BLOCK have all around facing thus I am assuming that this means that they can fire in any direction.

Adding in the ability to fire and removing some of the Light units in the game would make for an interesting game. Less small units to push around. And leaving in some of the independent Light units which did fight with cavalry would historically represent the period very well.

 

[decaf]

“It was not a pitched battle, but a small action when Parma
was marching from Coulommiers to Pontavert, November 11 1590 ...”

Ahhhh, ...

I see. We are talking about a small unit action, where
some troops are pulled from a march column. Certainly such
incidents would occur many times. But, I’m focusing on the
large battles that appear in REN, and the behavior of large
formations of mixed weapon types on the battlefield.

“... Albi writes that it was a standard procedure for the
arquebussiers to take shelter in a circle of halberdiers
from enemy cavalry.”

Yes, indeed. In fact, check the first post I made at the
top of this thread. There I quoted Hall who describes the
practice where the arquebusiers would hide in the core of
the heavy infantry block upon enemy contact. However, I
was making a point about the composition (and frequency) of
detachments from the heavy infantry block, not evolutions
within the block.

“Alcántara”

The Battle of Alcántara, August 25, 1580; part of the War
of the Portuguese Succession; caused by the 1580 Portuguese
succession crisis. There is a really short article in
Wikipedia. It doesn’t show up in Oman or Turnbull. But,
the good news is that we can get detail from Dr. Picouet’s
page at:
http://www.geocities.com/aow1617/alcantarauk.html

Dr. Picouet’s figures do not show a skirmish line. His
description for the Spanish army, left wing, is 7 Spanish
mangas (sleeves) extracted from the 6 Spanish tercios in
the center. We see in the figures that these arquebus and
cavalry formed an assault wing that flanked and smashed the
Portuguese right. There is no indication that the arquebus
were extracted in the midst of the battle. And, there is
no indication that anything other than arquebus were
transferred to the left wing. So, this confirms my
thought. One could skip detachments from mixed weapon heavy
infantry blocks in the midst of battle, and leave it to the
scenario designer to use appropriate combinations of pure
weapon and mixed weapon units to model the pre-battle
deployments.

Dr. Picouet’s page shows something very interesting. He
says

“On the left wing (s) we have 7 Spanish mangas (extract
from the 6 Spanish Tercios of the centre) of 300
harquebusiers and musketeers ...”

But aryaman11 says, “... arquebussiers of the 6 units
were detached to form a body of 2.100 men, divided in 7
sleeves ...”

If we assume 300 shot per sleeve/manga, then we have 2100
shot on the left wing, and not 300 shot. I go with
Aryaman11, since we see from the figures that the left wing
launched a highly successful assault. (And, Dr. Picouet’s
account could be interpreted as 300 per manga, and not 300
total.)

Now, check out REN scenario # 89 - - Alcantara_a. This
shows only 300 shot in the Spanish left wing, and the
center dripping with arquebus. This follows the 300 total
that one can easily interpret from Dr. Picouet. I haven’t
yet played Alcantara_a yet. But, I sure don’t like the
chances of a mere 300 Spanish shot against the 1000 man
Portuguese 2a Tercio pike block (backed up with 1000
arquebus in the near vicinity). I think we have a scenario
“bug” in Alcantara_a.

Aryaman11, could you do a quick double check of Albi and
confirm the 2100 total arquebus on the Spanish left? And,
with such a transfer, would there be any arquebus at all in
the center tercios? Or, would they be stripped of shot?

Hrik, if you are reading this, what was your source
(sources) for Alcantara_a? What would be your take on the
placement of the 1800 shot (center or left)?

I found one other interesting thing in Dr. Picouet’s web
pages; in chapter 2 “Organization of the Spanish army”:

http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/organisationUK.html

He says “The Tercio was an administrative as well as a
tactic unit, especially in the XVI century.” And a little
further down, the figure “tercioXV.jpg” shows the TOE for 2
different versions of tercio. Here we see that there is,
indeed, a good bit of internal structure; to the tune of 10
to 12 companies per 3000 man tercio. Two of the companies
are essentially just shot, while the remainder are pike and
shot mixtures. This tells me that it might be possible
that tercios could detach mixed weapon formations, contrary
to my thought earlier in this thread. Whether this was
done in practice or not, in the midst of battle, is quite
another question. And, whether this was a capability of
other (non-Spanish) heavy infantry blocks is also an open
question.