Warlord have finally published their Renaissance rules. I'm afraid they were not worth waiting (or paying) for since they do not reflect the basics of Renaissance warfare at all.
Pike & Shotte is merely an extension of Black Powder rules and principles to the English Civil War.
The following sentence at the top of page 46 summarises all its flaws:
QuoteA unit can only shoot at a target to its front quarter.
The versatility, flexibility and unique, stand-alone qualities of the major Renaissance battlefield formations are simply ignored and replaced by the linear tactics of a later age.
Imagine a Spanish escuadrón or a Swedish Brigade being able to shoot only from its front quarter... ;D
Meh... I'm sticking with me own rules for Renaissance. And pondering another nice, big order for Pendraken Renaissance miniatures ;)
Cheers,
Aart
Thanks for the feedback. It will be interesting to see what others think of the rules.
Thanks for update on those rules. We have been enjoying a DBA variant called DBA-RRR. Quite fun, easy to build several armies and single games under an hour to finish and multi player games lasting about two hours. I know some players are not fans of DBA but the RRR adjustments are free as well as the 100+ page file of army lists :o
Ive got them but I am pretty clueless as to the rights and wrong of warfare in that era to be quite honest. I got to play a ECW game at Salute and it was a fun game to play, building on Black Powders mechanics. Lovely book as usual with that series, but I cant add much more than that.
Are you saying that Aart that they work ok for ECW but for the rest of the era, such as 30YW they arent very good? Go slow as Im no expert on the era! ;)
Quote from: Serotonin on 08 May 2012, 12:29:49 PMAre you saying that Aart that they work ok for ECW but for the rest of the era, such as 30YW they arent very good? Go slow as Im no expert on the era! ;)
Oh, I don't want to be a spoil-sport, I'm not a fascist on detail or 'historical accuracy' and I suppose these rules work well as such. Particularly for your famous Roundheads 'n Royalists. The ECW was pretty much M-P-M business on the Mauritian model, i.e. circa 400/800-strong regiments consisting of a central pike bloc with two wings of shot firing in counter-march or in closed files after the Swedish example.
But for different (and older) formations these rules don't work, particularly for the big, 'self-contained' fighting units such as the Spanish escuadrón. Rulesets like FoG Renaissance go out of their way to accommodate the many shooting, maneuvering and meleeing possibilities of these formations.
And now Warlord do the opposite. :P
Anyway, Warlord's know their business and they will have their (marketing) reasons for doing this. I still think Black Powder beats everything else 18th/early 19th century, though, and I have no axe to grind. Besides I'm probably dead wrong on each and every count anyway, so let's hear it from others.
Cheers,
Aart
Ah cool cheers. Ive been toying with Swedish and Imperials for 30YW. Would that also fit with these rules or are they well off?
Art
I am not surprised. I thought 'Last Argument of Kings' was poor value for money.
Chad
Quote from: Chad on 08 May 2012, 07:23:50 PM
I am not surprised. I thought 'Last Argument of Kings' was poor value for money.
Well I dunno. Warlord's aren't all bad methinks.
Last Argument may be overpriced and/or overproduced but at least it yields a good game, true to the rhythm and 'feel' of the period, doesn't it?
However
Pike & Shotte does no such thing.
Cheers,
Aart
Very interesting...People are starting to ask if the new Maurice rules could be used for 17thC warfare
Quote from: Fenton on 09 May 2012, 05:36:31 PM
Very interesting...People are starting to ask if the new Maurice rules could be used for 17thC warfare
I have no idea. But if Maurice is based on linear tactics, it won't work for the 16th and early 17th centuries for reasons I already mentioned.
If it has an identical movement allowance for both small and huge units,like
Pike & Shotte, it won't work either. A small 17th century unit would be, say, 400 men strong and would be able to move and change formation quickly, as opposed to the 3000-strong Spanish formations of the early period. Allowing them the exact same 'Infantry' pace of movement just doesn't cut it.
Alright, enough of them negative vibes. I'm working on (or rather finishing) my own set of TYW and ECW rules and I hope Leon will allow me to put them up one day soon for your evaluation and criticism.
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 09 May 2012, 07:05:38 PM
Alright, enough of them negative vibes. I'm working on (or rather finishing) my own set of TYW and ECW rules and I hope Leon will allow me to put them up one day soon for your evaluation and criticism.
Yeah, no bother at all, pop me an email whenever you like.
8)
Played the Pavia scenario the other day, found it very enjoyable. Fitted with my idea of the era.
I'll stick to Regiment of Foote, but then again I'm only interested in the ECW for this period, it gives me the feeling that I think screams ECW to me, amatuer soldiers led by bungling Aristos, this set delivers that. Stuff doesnt turn up for the battle, turns up late, turns up with poorer morale/strength than it started with. When battle finally becomes joined, whole wings of your army can just stand there, picking their noses and admiring the clouds for turns at an end.
Maurice covers 1690-1790 so probably not suitable for earlier 17th century.
Art - I found the troop classifications to broad in LAOK and begin to wonder
how much the author researched his work when he referred to 20,000
Austrians at Blenheim. Afraid that did it for me.
Chad
Quote from: Sandinista on 09 May 2012, 07:35:01 PM
Played the Pavia scenario the other day, found it very enjoyable. Fitted with my idea of the era.
I'll be playing Pavia coming weekend. It's a zoo, I hear ;)
Quote from: Chad on 09 May 2012, 09:59:19 PM
Maurice covers 1690-1790 so probably not suitable for earlier 17th century.
Art - I found the troop classifications to broad in LAOK and begin to wonder
how much the author researched his work when he referred to 20,000
Austrians at Blenheim. Afraid that did it for me.
Chad
Wait til you see their Trafalgar scenario with the 10.000 Undead Vikings... :o 8)
Cheers,
Aart
QuoteI'll stick to Regiment of Foote, but then again I'm only interested in the ECW for this period, it gives me the feeling that I think screams ECW to me, amatuer soldiers led by bungling Aristos, this set delivers that. Stuff doesnt turn up for the battle, turns up late, turns up with poorer morale/strength than it started with
Interested to read your comments Gordon. I've had RoF for some time, but never got round to using them. Do you use 10mm or 15mm? If using 10mm do you change anything? I know it's designed for 15s like all Piggie rules.
Cheers
Quote from: Sandinista on 09 May 2012, 07:35:01 PM
Played the Pavia scenario the other day, found it very enjoyable. Fitted with my idea of the era.
Played Pavia as well yesterday afternoon. It certainly fits one's ideas about the Italian Wars, I give you that.
Mind you, like
Hail Ceasar or
Black Powder, P&S could do with a little tweaking and the rules happily allow for that.
One tweak I would appreciate is to grant every unit a free move on every turn. Players who want two or three moves for their units will have to make a command roll with all the risks involved, including blunders.
This prevents the well-known problem of brigades or entire wings remaining immobile for half the game - which may be 'historically accurate' but kills 'playability' - and still allows for, um,
eventualities to occur.
Maybe my initial judgment that P&S doesn't do justice to the TYW was a bit rash. I may have to play a couple TYW scenarios first, maybe come up with another tweak, and perhaps it will fit the bill after all. I would love that, because it's so much easier to find opponents if you work from a well-known ruleset.
So here's to Warlords: never say never! ;)
Cheers,
Aart
Nah Mal, just used it in 10mm, changed nothing, Piggies are on the short side of 15mm and Pendraken are on the big side for 10s, does look a little spread out, if I was doing it again I'd probably reduce the frontage from 30mm down to 25. The only impact that would have would be to give you a bit more room on the table than you should have. Be sure to go through the pre battle sequence, there's nothing more annoying than to see your largest elite cavalry unit , being commandeered by the local witchfinder to hunt down old one-eyed Mary and knowing that thats the last you'll see of them.
Hello
I`m a fan of hail ceasar and black powder but must admit that after a (quickish) look at P/S at the club last night they didn`t float my boat.
They look fine for the italian wars but was a bit gutted with treatment the tyw and ecw got.
It`s the battalia organisations of an officer some, pikeblocks, musket units, maybe an artillery piece and some dragoons that i find a bit suspect.
Each component part of battalia is treated like a separate unit for combat and morale which sucks.
It all seems a bit clunky and disjointed for the mid 17th century stuff but for before that and after it seems fine.
Which is a shame as I was looking forward to use them to do the TYW especially as FoGR turned out to be utter pants.
I may just use a tweaked version of BP where each unit is a proper battalia/battalion or small regiment.
Jim
Quote from: Jim Ando on 14 May 2012, 08:01:11 PM
I may just use a tweaked version of BP where each unit is a proper battalia/battalion or small regiment.
Jim
My sentiments exactly. A major problem is the size of Spanish escuadrónes, which went from 1300 at Fleurus (1622) to 500 at Downs (1658). Very hard to represent in P&S. The same goes for the Swedish brigade, which is rather awkwardly represented on page 29 as a combination of three separate units. But I'm sure this can be tweaked.
Cheers,
Aart