A Second Italian Wars battle using Pike and Shotte, plus Italian Wars army list thoughts

For our second battle, using Pike and Shotte, I'm going to be ambitious. It will use quite a lot of the possible Italian Wars troop types, and plenty of them. Unit characterisations might change from one scenario to the next as might the odd 'value' but that is for the future. I am very keen on the unit characterisation rules. 

We will play the game using the standard rules, including (against my judgement) the Command Blunder rule because they seem to be so popular that there must be something to be said for them - we'll see. The army lists are a different kettle of fish. In consequence of one army list change I will introduce a new 'special' unit characterisation rule. 

You might notice that their are no Chevauleger type cavalry units in my armies. I do have a few units of these but I hardly ever use them as separate units in a P&S stylee. 

Following the invasion of Italy the French were introduced to light cavalry (in the form of the Stradiots) and having none of their own formed units of chevauleger to fulfil the same role. 

However, although they undoubtedly existed for use as scouts and so forth, I can't find them (in separate units) in the French order of battle for any field battle between 1495 and about 1530 (my chosen era). 

There are units of Gendarmes, Stradiots, mounted crossbowmen and arquebusier but, no chevauleger.

Given that the name Stradiot became a more universal term to describe light cavalry in French service I wonder if, when we see numbers of Stradiots in OOB, this might also include the illusive chevauleger. In any event, they were not used as heavy cavalry as that role was fulfilled by the Gendarmes d'Ordonnance. 

Consequently, I don't field these lesser brands of heavy cavalry as defined in P&S: In my armies, all heavy cavalry are classed as Gendarmes or their equivalent.

My definition of Italian Wars mounted missilery troops is also somewhat different to those described in P&S. 

I do not believe that these units were cavalry in the true sense. I think they were mounted on horses and ponies of dubious quality and were not keen on mixing it hand to hand, preferring to avoid melee and 'skirmish' with crossbows and arquebus from a distance. 

Consequently, to encourage these tactics I have down rated their hand to hand value from 6 to 4 and wish to introduce a new special unit characterisation rule called Cautious. This rule is similar to the rule Eager except that it allows units to make a free movement away from the enemy if they fail their order.

I am also going to reduce the range of the cavalry crossbow to 12" as it would be stirrup or lever crossbow; they did not use an infantryman's arbalest loaded with a windlass. On the subject of crossbows, in P&S the special rule Crossbows does not seem to make sense (paying more not to be able to use closing fire?) so I'm going to choose to treat this as a misprint and charge 2 points less for all troops so armed.

In the future I may class some units of mounted shot (such as Giovanni's 300 mounted arquebusier) as dragoons, giving them the option to dismount. I think this might be very good fun.

I have pondered the definition of Landsknechts as Mercenary since first buying P&S (basing and army lists being first ports of call after buying a rule set). 

That they were mercenaries, and that they could be awkward employees (like the Swiss), is not in doubt but, next to the Swiss, once on the field of battle they were the most reliable pike infantry in the Italian Wars and they invariably fought well. 

I like the rule but I feel it has been badly applied with regards to these troops. I will not rate my Landsknechts as Mercenary unless they are badly disaffected due to lack of pay or some other factor.

My views on the Spanish colunela are well known by followers of this blog. 

The colunela is a single all arms entity. It is not a hotch-potch of individual small units that operate however they (or rather the player) might choose. 

The only way this formation can be effectively represented on the table is as a single unit (IMHO). 

I have to take my hat off to P&S: At last a set of rules flexible enough to do this. Coming at the problem of colunelas from the P&S angle I came up with exactly the solution I had before. My only worry is that I might have produced a 'super unit'. If I have, I will play about with the factors or introduce a new 'characterisation' rule. BTW, my chosen figure scale is 1:40 which makes my 36 figure colunela 1440 men strong - historically they were 1500-ish. My colunela comprise four stands of arquebus (16 figs) backed by two stands of pike (12 figs) and two stands of sword and buckler men (8 figs). Looking at the unit specification in my OOB below, you'll see these units (pictured opposite) are wondrous to behold.

The armies for this Wednesday night's battle are detailed below. All photos are of it set up.

Below are the OOB sheets with the unit details.

FRENCH Commander-in -Chief             Commander Rating 8
Unit	Unit Type	Weapon	Melee value	Shooting value	Morale value	Stamina	Special	Points
FRENCH CAVALRY 1 (4 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [344]
Gendarmes (4 large units)	Heavy Horse (9”)	Lance, mace & sword	12	-	3+	5	Heavy Cavalry D3, Elite 4+	76 [304]
ITALIAN SHOT  (3 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 9	60 [132]
Shot (3 unit)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arquebus (12”)	3	2	4+	3	Mercenary	24 72
SWISS INFANTRY  (6 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [312]
Swiss Pike (4 units)	Foot Pike Block (6”)	Pike	7	-	4+	4	Hedgehog, Elite 4+, Ferocious Charge	44 [176]
Swiss Shot (2 small unit)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arquebus (12”)	2	1	4+	2		23 [46]
Heavy Gun (2 guns)	Artillery (nil)	Cannon	1	3-2-1	5+	2		25 [50]
FRENCH CAVALRY 2  (4 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [234]
Gendarmes (2 units)	Heavy Horse (9”)	Lance, mace & sword	10	-	3+	4	Heavy Cavalry D3, Elite 4+	70 [140]
Argulets (2 units)	Light Horse (12”)	Crossbow (12”)	4	1	5+	3	Cautious (Free move to retire), Mercenary, Crossbow	27 [54]
FRENCH INFANTRY  (5 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 7	20 [130]
Picardy Pike (2 units)	Foot Pike Block (6”)	Pike	5	-	6+	4		25 [50]
Gascon Crossbows (3 units)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arbalest (18”)	2	2	6+	3	Crossbow	20 (60)
TOTAL								1257

SPANISH WITH VENETIAN ALLIES Commander-in -Chief             Commander Rating 8
Unit	Unit Type	Weapon	Melee value	Shooting value	Morale value	Stamina	Special	Points
SPANISH CAVALRY (5 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [308]
Gendarmes (3 units)	Heavy Horse (9”)	Lance, mace & sword	10	-	3+	4	Heavy Cavalry D3, Elite 4+	66 [198]
Genitors (2 units)	Light Horse (12”)	Javelin(6”),  sword & shield	6	1	5+	3	Fire and Evade	35 [70]
SPANISH INFANTRY  (4 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [294]
Colunela (4 large units)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arquebus 12" / Pike / Sword & buckler	5	2	4+	4	Reliable, Pike Company, Swordsmen D3	59 [237]
Light Gun (1 guns)	Artillery (6”l)	Cannon (24”)	1	3-2-1	5+	2		17 [17]
LANDSKNECHTS  (8 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [311]
Landsknecht Pike (3 large units)	Foot Pike Block (6”)	Pike	8	-	4+	5	Bad War, Hedgehog	40 [120]
Landsknecht Shot (3 small unit)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arquebus (12”)	2	2	5+	2	Bad War	17 [51]
Mounted Arquebus (2 units)	Light Horse (12”)	Arquebus (12”)	4	1	5+	3	Cautious (Free move to retire), Mercenary	29 [58]
Medium Gun (2 guns)	Artillery (nil)	Cannon (48”)	1	3-2-1	5+	2		21 [42]
VENETIANS  (8 units)	-	-	-	-	-	-	Command Rating 8	40 [304]
Gendarmes (3 units)	Heavy Horse (9”)	Lance, mace & sword	10	-	3+	4	Heavy Cavalry 1	56 [168]
Stradiots (2 units)	Light Horse (12”)	Javelin (6”), sword & shield	6	1	5+	3	Fire and Evade	35 [70]
Venetian Shot (3 unit)	Foot Battle Line (6”)	Arquebus (12”)	3	2	5+	3	Mercenary	22 [66]
TOTAL								1256

Pike And Shotte - First battle AAR and post battle conclusions about the rules

Peter and Graham, like myself, had not played Pike and Shotte rules before Wednesday and only I have read them. So I decided the best way to proceed was to give Peter and Graham a side and let them go at it. 

I thought that if I tried to explain everything before we started it would both confuse the issue and take far too much time; it proved to be a good idea. Within ten minutes of the boys turning up, we were playing.

The Landsknechts and Swiss slowly advanced towards the stream. The cannons banged and arquebus fire rattled in all directions. A cavalry skirmish between missile cavalry developed beyond the village whilst on the French right a cavalry battle began to develop.

The cavalry battle got underway in earnest. It went, in true cavalry style, backwards and forwards with charge and counter charge. The French were coming off the worse for it.....

....and, seeing his flank begin to buckle, Peter launched the Swiss against the Imperial centre. They made short work of the Landsknecht shot which had ventured too close and began to get across the stream whilst the Landsknechts began to slowly withdraw.

The cavalry skirmish on the other flank wasn't going anywhere. 

Graham was content to shoot at Peter's forlorn hope of Stradiots and Peter would not commit his Gendarmes which chose to hang about in the rear.

After several combats, the French cavalry on the right collapsed - Battalia broken.

The Imperials were one nil up.

The Swiss crossed the stream in short order then, next move, ordered a charge. 

They made the distance in a single three move bound. It came to push of pike and the ferocious charge gave the Swiss a distinct edge. The Swiss got the better of round one. One landsknecht pike square was broken but, with some amazing defencive saving rolls, most of the Landsknechts remained in the field and unshaken.

Next move, in true Graham fashion, Graham was Graham. 

He deflected just about every hit the Swiss managed to land with morale saves, then threw three 'five hits out of six' rolls in a row and Peter failed to save many at all. The Swiss Battalia was broken.

The game was over. The Imperials won at a canter.

Only on the left were the French in any fit shape but with two out of three Battalia broken the army was broken. 

The game ended. Our first game had been fought to a definite conclusion in about three hours.

So that is a quick summary of what happened in the game. 

The game ended at 11 pm so we didn't have chance for a group 'rules autopsy'. Consequently, this opinion of Pike and Shotte rules is largely just my own. 

When playing a set of rules for the first time a stumble or two must be expected, especially when it's only the 'bear of little brain' that has read the rules. 

However, I thought the rules were quite intuitive and consequently the game rumbled along, with the odd hiccup, at a good lick. I think that after two or three games, when the nuances have been picked up and ironed out, games using P&S will move along very quickly indeed - even using large armies. 

So far, so good.

The ordering system is quite straight forward, though we forgot the -1 modifier for being close to the enemy until half way through the game, the rally order was used to rally first casualty once or twice early on, and we ignored the blunder rule completely (because 'I' don't like it). Moving on initiative when close to the enemy was quickly pounced upon as a good thing. 

I did notice something that I had been forewarned of; I had been told that first order failure by the same commander on successive turns could spoil a game. As it was, in this game, failure was opposed by failure so the effect was not pronounced but, I can see situations where it might become (speaking as the unbiased umpire / scenario designer) a very irritating spoiler. I understand there are various house rules in use around the country to iron this out - I even have an idea of my own (but, that's for much later down the line).

Everyone loved the easy way in which units could be moved about the table within the confines of the orders given. It is a very refreshing aspect of the rules. One point of friction, between umpire and players, was the discrepancy between the quick play sheet and the rules regarding the effect of terrain - because players, having looked, thought one thing, only to be flatly told by me that it wasn't so: "We will use the rule book definition, I don't care what it says there" (I was a bit tetchy about it). 

I'm not sure how easy the 45 degree arcs ('quarters' in P&S), especially when it comes to charges, especially at proximity distances, are to understand: I got it; Peter got it; Graham didn't. 

The combat rules were easy to pick up and most of the factors were quickly remembered enabling speedy resolution of both shooting and melee combat. 

Although some combats had very unexpected results (down to Graham's fluky dice rolling abilities) the basic odds in dice and factors all looked to be about right, and the effects of combat all seemed very reasonable. 

I particularly liked how the larger 'combats' worked. This is because I would hold that in the Italian Wars pike squares were not made up of small units - they usually operated as a single mass. At one point we had four Landsknecht units in a single frontal combat with three Swiss units. They all fought separately but the results were combined to give a winner of the round overall - it was, in effect, one big square vs another big square. It didn't quite work like that when working out what happened to the losing units, because units took 'break tests' separately but, as a compromise, I can live with it. 

The rules on victory and defeat (breaking battalia and armies) are concise and definitely bring about an end to the game very quickly. For one off, line them up battles I can see the point of them as written: they end a game in a reasonable time.

However, in the longer term, I think these rules might need tweaking, perhaps by making the 50% breaking point more about unit value than number of units. I could see a player getting pretty miffed if, after losing four small units of militia rabble, his battalia's remaining three units of elite gendarmes (that cost ten times as much) count as broken; and no, I don't believe the gendarmes should shepherd the militia to stay in the fight, because that's just silly!

One thing I would advise anyone to do when setting out with these rules is to get yourself lots of counters. These could be as simple as coins, or as complex as casualty clocks, but you'll need plenty of three types. 

1. Casualty counters: We used small stones based on coins for casualties (these are two pence pieces, with one stone per casualty).
2. Disorder counters: We used small tufts based on coins to note disorder (these are brush bristle based on one pence pieces).
3. Shaken counters: We used broken wagon wheels based on coins to note shaken (these are mainly wheels from some discarded oversized MDF wagons, mentioned in a recent post, based on two pence pieces).

If your bases are square then life, using P&S, will be simple. Otherwise, a tool for measuring 45 degree angles will prove to be very useful. We used the one shown quite a bit in our game (it is made from three ice lolly sticks and piano wire). 

Obviously, a measuring device of some type is essential and a tape measure is the usual solution. However, some time ago, we started using a couple of 12" long measuring sticks (fortunately graduated in 3" segments) for gaming. It's funny but, they have proved to be a real hit because they are much easier to use than a tape measure for some reason. 'Old School' got something right then (LOL).

BTW, none of the counters, sticks or the angle wangler were made for P&S games, which I suppose shows their universal usefulness.

So, marks out of 10 for Pike & Shotte. I'm going to give P&S a very solid 8. I'm definitely up for another game using them: I've already set it up for next week. These rules hold a lot of promise. 

Having looked at the rules since playing, I don't think we actually played anything wrong. There were some minor things we missed and only playing and reading will bring more of these things out into the open. After next week's game I'll lend out P&S to Peter and Graham for them to read (they don't have any renaissance stuff so they will not be buying a copy anytime soon). Three heads are better than one.

NEXT POST: A bigger test for P&S.

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.

Did you know?

This feels like quite a funny question for me to ask. 

Did you know I paint figures for people for a living? I've avoided the subject for all of years this blog has been running because I've always seen this blog as a 'my toys' blog. But this morning I had an email from someone asking if I took painting commissions and I thought, hang on a minute, you've been looking at my blog for ages and the various links to it (on popular sites), and you might have talked to me at shows............

I don't make a secret of what I do. Nor do I choose to advertise what I do on this site because I've always seen this site as 'commercially neutral'. This is my site to applaud the efforts of others and, of course, to brag a bit (I admit it). 

But, how many of you knew I was a commissioned painter? 

BTW. This is not an attempt to drum up trade. I started painting for beer money when I left hotel and restaurant management over ten years ago, now I make a living and my order book hasn't been completely empty for about six years (that was a crazy fortnight not taken full advantage of). I'd just be interested in knowing how many of you know I'm 'trade'.

See Poll in the side bar.

Thanks,

James

RESULT: 204 votes cast.

Yes, I knew that: 28%

No: 67%

I thought this blog had sneaky overtones [should have been 'sneaky undertones']: 4%

Frankly, I'm amazed. I thought the yes / no would be the other way around. The 4% who thought this blog was some kind of mind control gadget didn't surprise me, 3% percent of the male population are also psychopaths and............. (joke, boys). 

Warbases engineer's cart with Front Rank horses

Whilst at Derby World Wargames show last weekend I took a look about the Warbases stand. I was actually looking for windows and doors (which Martin hadn't brought) when my eye was drawn to a cabinet containing wagons and carts. I've bought MDF carts once before (I can't remember who made them) only to be disappointed because when I made them up they were massively over scale and made my draught horses look like Shetland ponies - they went into the bin. However, like everything Martin produces, the Warbases models looked a class apart. I bought one as a try out and I must say I'm delighted with it. I'll be buying more the next time I put in a 'windows and doors' order.

This one is Engineer's cart. It is MDF with a one piece cast resin load.

It was quite easy to construct, even without instructions, though getting the order in which things went together took a little thought. The parts fit very tightly together and I chose to build it then apply a few spots of glue on the joints and tabs at the end.

The horses are Front Rank. I decided to paint the horses black and white after seeing a large black and white horse in a field on the way back from the show; I immediately thought how good that pattern would look pulling my little new wagon. Warbases also do a very nice pair of draught horses, but I didn't know that when I bought the wagon; they'll pull the next one though. 

The figure is also by Front Rank.

We came back with medals.......

Well, we are all back safe and sound from our weekend at Derby World Wargames 2016. Yet again the boys from Derby put on an excellent and well attended show. We chatted to lots of people over the weekend, some old friends and some new faces, and it was good to put a face to people previously only 'met' over the ether of the internet. Thanks for stopping by to say hello.

Here are a few shots of the game. I've only picked out one or two of the best of a lot of blurred (no tripod) photos, but it will give you an idea of how the game looked on the day. 

Victory on this occasion went to the Austrians. The Prussians didn't manage to push the Grenzers off the Lobosch and the Prussian cavalry was all but destroyed in fruitless charges against the sunken road - though Pennavaire did come mighty close to breaking through at one point, and the Garde du Corps were simply heroic.

During the battle there were several events of note, including Frederick legging it after failing Major Morale when the Prussians had lost seven units; Radicatti failed to get out of the way of a charge by the Garde du Corps and got squashed; a Prussian cavalry unit, in disorder with casualties, was taken in the flank by a unit of elite squadrons - the Prussians beat them off by rolling better twice, first with D6 Vs D12+3, and then D6 Vs D12+1 - and overall I don't ever remember the Prussian cavalry fighting with such valour throughout an entire battle.

Anyway, as I've said, a good weekend was had by all. The game came in, by popular vote, joint 1st with The Boondocks Sayntes' fabulous Zulu War game and we split the prize money between us (though given the amount of red they drank on the Sunday they might need to be reminded of it).

Thanks to Jeff Berry of Obscure Battles for allowing us to use his description of the action as our table side brochure. His work, and attention to detail, was much admired.

Thanks also to the guys from Barely Legal Wargames Club, who had the table (Battle of Carabobo 1821) next door to ours, for the Black Powder tutorial. As usual, though I intended to take photos of  other games, I forgot, or those I took are too blurred to publish but, thankfully, at least this one came out OK. See you next year boys.

For once I even came back with a goody bag. I bought a copy of Pike and Shotte to try for the Italian Wars, a second hand copy of Atlas of the Crusades that was going too cheaply to pass up, and a very nice engineers wagon (with load) model from War Bases. A client also kindly bought me a present of Wellington Invades France (thank you J. W.) which I look forward to reading.

Speaking of War Bases, I had a chat about the possibility of a generic pontoon wagon and Martin said he was already thinking about doing one. I've always wanted a couple for a pontoon train so I'm very much looking forward to buying what he comes up with.