Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Pike and Shotte - pre-game thoughts.

A couple of weeks ago I picked up a copy of Pike and Shotte at the Derby show. I've been reading, and re-reading, a section or two every day since. I found the rules quite well laid out and quite easy to navigate and on the whole they look quite straight forward. 

I particularly like the subtlety of the combat factors and the fact that there are not too many of them - I think after a game or two most will be committed to memory and the quick reference sheet will become largely obsolete. 

Some rules, however, are a little harder to find. This was particularly the case with the 'proximity distance' rule and the possibility of "sexy sweeping moves around a unit to hit it's flank or rear" (Bill G.'s words). I thought they shouldn't be allowed but couldn't find the rule that stopped them. I looked at how other people played it and got several different answers, so it wasn't just me. 

Thankfully, Bill G. showed me the way. The answer has nothing to do with proximity distance and lies in the mid page paragraph of p.60 (and its associated diagram below) on charging. I read that page more than once and missed the import of the five words that hold the key, they are "when the order is received". 

EDIT FOR MARTIN: Conclusion: So, a unit can only charge the enemy quarter facing it when the order is given; if there is no room to charge that quarter you can't charge home onto that face; you can move to a into a position facing another quarter but you cannot charge home because that quarter was not facing you at the start of your turn. It all makes perfect sense; it was just a case of finding the important bit that said it.

I've set up a game between French (12 units) and Imperialists (15 units) both in three commands. This might be ambitious for a first game, we will see.

I've decided to put out units in unit sizes based on number of bases rather than the prescribed 'figures in unit' given in the rules. I've been advised that this is fine and generally looks better, especially for the pike blocks and, looking at the rules, I agree unit footprint isn't that important.

I've gone for standard pike in six stand units (36 figs); standard battle line infantry units in four stand units (16 figures) and small ones in two stand units (8 figs); all standard cavalry units in four stand units (8 figs).

I've kept terrain to manageable minimum. A couple of buildings to break things up; a few linear obstacles - some walls and a narrow stream; a small area of broken (boggy ground).

Initially I thought about playing on a completely open field, but aesthetic got the better of me. I hope the terrain doesn't confuse things too much.
My 'light horse' is based on deeper stands than my 'heavy horse'. I think it gives these guys a flighty look. 

Fortunately, base size doesn't figure too much within the rules. This is incredibly important as re-basing 1800 or so figures would be quite an undertaking.
Another thing I like about the way Pike and Shotte is set up, is that most things look very tweakable at the level of the basic unit. I like rules that have the feel of a toolbox, and these certainly do. 

Looking at the unit factors, I think that missile cavalry might be a little too strong in melee and useless at shooting. I guess the truth (or not) of this will be revealed in play. 

I'm very much looking forward to this game. I do hope we like these rules. Without actually having played them, I say they hold considerable promise.

This is one of my favourite figure collections and it has always needed a good set of 'quick fire' rules to spice up the games and encourage me to get the figures out more.

I will report on how we found the rules in the next few days.

Well that's it, lunch break over. 

Back to painting Frenchmen.


Steve J. said...

They give a nice game, but like Black Powder, sometimes you have to look for important bits of rules to make things clear. Baroque are worth considering; they too look good but I've yet to play a game with them.

Vexillia said...

You say "The answer has nothing to do with proximity distance and lies in the mid page paragraph of p.60" but don't mention your conclusion. Do tell.

Colin Ashton said...

Jim, I agree with Steve that they go e you a good game and I've been playing them for years. They need a bit of tweeking to make them feel right for some of the sub periods. Ive certainly had no problem using g them for Italian Wars, the 30YW, Poles v Swedes and Turks, and the early wars of Louis XIV. Just finished a game today between French and Dutch circa 1674 using the rules and it was a thoroughly enjoyable affair. Be on my blog by tomorrow .


Colin Ashton said...

Ps Baroque are also really good but a little more cerebral that P and S.


Hi Martin, will edit in a mo.

Vexillia said...

Thanks James.

Francesc said...

Nice collection!
My experience with blackpowder was that you had to fire first to keep people pinned (specially enemy cav)

Jim Clarke said...

I agree in general with your observations about P&S. good core mechanics but need a little bit of tweaking to give them period flavour. I also had a querry about most all of the missle troops being formed. Very few actual skirmishers unless I have missed it.

caveadsum1471 said...

I like the way you have based your troops for the Italian wars especially the pikes and light horse so I was going to base mine the same and as an interim us pike and shot until hell breaks lose came out. Does that mean your not going to continue with that ruleset?
Best Iain


Hell Broke Loose isn't dead but it is on the back burner.

Geordie an Exiled FoG said...


My default rules for this period was Impetus
However I might be tempted ...

Looking forward to your next reports
As your rules rational is very close to my own
A set of quick rules that would encourage me to play and paint the period more

Thanks for posting