Mixed pike and shot in DBA-RRR

[kfenstermaker]

I have played DBR, but admittedly not DBA-RRR, so take this for what it is worth! One thing that I find off-putting about pike and shot at DBA scale is the grossly out of scale effect when using the flank support rule. For example two elements of Pike flanked by an element of shot on each side representing (give or take) 2000 pike with a 1000 shot on each flank and making up about 1/3 of the entire army frontage. Yikes!
Scrapping flank support is an idea that I have been toying with in my head, but not on the board, as of yet. Some of this has been borrowed from FOG. (Heresy!) Feel free to shoot it down...

Standard mixed pike and shot - One element of shot, rear supported by one element of pike.
The shot receives a +1 rear support from the pike in melee and is not subject to a quick kill vs mounted.

Tercio - One element of shot followed by one element of pike followed by one element of shot. Same as above, plus...
Can fire each shot element in any direction (only one to the front) counting side and rear edges as front edges. Cannot be recoiled so cannot be destroyed by flank or rear contact.

Kiel - 3 deep pike. (Deep Swiss and landsknecht pike formations)
Same factors as 2 deep pike. Can be recoiled. Is destroyed by rear contact, but not by edge contact.

Commanded Shot - Pistols rear supported by Shot.
+1 support to Pistols and adjacent Pistols (just like DBA Psiloi support of spears, blades, etc.) vs Pistols and Pikes.

These formations would have to be treated as a single element so as to keep someone from picking off individual elements until losses are taken to degrade the formation. A tercio would become a standard pike and shot formation and then a single pike or shot element, a kiel a regular 2 deep pike formation, etc.
I suppose these formations would need to be list specific, which is counter to general DBA principles as I understand them. If I can manage to hash some renaissance armies together, I will have to try this out....

Keith

[Cromwell]

This seems a workable idea!

I have some English Civil War figures so i will give it ago and let you know how it works out!

[david Crenshaw]

I've been a bit bothered by this as well, but it is the same problem faced in DBA for mixed crossbow or bow formations with spear supports. I have been wondering if pike formations shouldn't be raised to +4 vs infantry and considered to have shot support built into the element, but without the distance combat capabilities of massed shot. Obviously if that were the case there would be no rear or flank support bonuses.

David

[blacksven]

Many of the original DBA variants had a mixed pike and shot base element- the Humberside rules did for example. In the DBA scale that is a more sensible element really. Otherwise, you have to think that a standard 12 element army is really quite small for DBA-RRR for the separate elements to work. A 12 pt DBA-RRR army is a small field army of a few thousand at max not a large one. That's different than in DBA.

When DBR came out and many of the people with larger armies moved to that (with their already based figures for WRG rules) did that idea start to get dropped as did many of the DBA versions - this even got dropped from the Humberside rules as well.

So your idea's likely will work but they may not look quite so historical on the table.

[john svensson]

Give it a try and let us know how things work out. Combined pike and shot elements were bantered about when Tony was devising these rules and you can go back and see that in the threads. Being a little ignorant of your proposal here so bear with me....your tercio for example would be a single element ( of 12) and troop type on a deep base (30mm?) or would it actually just be a formation of sorts and count as three (of 12) elements within the army? If the former, then I would think you couldn't 'degrade' it to lesser troop types. John S.

[timurilank]

For the sake of saving a bit of time, on my part, what were the mixed shot/pike element factors? Fire as shot, melee with spear or factors?

[kfenstermaker]

Give it a try and let us know how things work out. Being a little ignorant of your proposal here so bear with me....your tercio for example would be a single element ( of 12) and troop type on a deep base (30mm?) or would it actually just be a formation of sorts and count as three (of 12) elements within the army? If the former, then I would think you couldn't 'degrade' it to lesser troop types. John S.

What I had in mind was three individual elements for the tercios. I might throw a half baked idea out there, I am not suicidal enough to suggest any new basing. :D
I have not tested any of these ideas yet and it might be a while. I have some ECW Scots but I am more interested in the interaction between the pike formations(Swiss or Landsknecht) vs pike/shot(Spanish colunela) or Spanish Tercios vs pike/shot. I own the minis to do an Italian wars French army, but I have a Persian project to complete first as well as being a slow painter!
So your idea's likely will work but they may not look quite so historical on the table.

I agree with you about the looks. See the above about novel basing schemes. :)

Keith

[michael guth]

Some of this has been discussed on the Renwars group and DBR group websites. Looking at FOGR for example, you have Kiels, Early Tercios, Late Tercios, T Brigades and late pike and shot (2 pike, and 4 shot on each wing). Some of the Tercios/Swedish brigades are differentiated because they can use 'salvo'. The even front bases of DBA/DBR/FOG are a real issue for depicting pike units with shot on the wings. Ideally the shot would be on 20mm wide front so that a pike and shot block would have 20mm shot, 40mm pike and 20mm shot/a 50/50 split.

The Maximillian rules use 24 element armies. This makes it easier to depict a variety of pike and shot formations. Thinking about DBA RRR, suppose you want to depict a small army of 3 Tercios, 2 squadrons of lancers and 2 units of light horse. Well, if we consider a DBA RRR Tercio to be 2 pike and two shot, we're up to 12 elements without having the cavalry ( 6 pike and 6 shot).

But suppose we depict a 'unit' of pike and shot as 4 elements on a 40 mm front. Now, a kiel is pike 4 deep, an early tercio might be one shot and 3 pike, later tercio 2 shot and two pike and later pike and shot units one pike and 3 shot. So, the units required for our sample army would be 12 elements of foot for the three tercios, and 4 elements for the cavalry. Now we're really only at 7 manuver elements here, assuming we don't let the pike and shot leave each other. So, we could increase army size and have 4 or 5 'Tercios at 4 elements each, and another 8 elements of cavalry each representing 2historical 'squadrons'. Congrats, you now have a game system that gives you an army at least half the size, unit wise, of the Swedish army at Lutzen. As to factors, you can now use step reduction for the tercios, since each starts with 4 elements. If my tercio fires at your tercio and I score a 6-1, then you lose one shot element.

So, with 12 elements we can now represent the initial front line clash at a major battle.

DBR and DBA RRR may have more tactical flavor of the period. Much of these games revolve around keeping your pike/shot/pistols in line using the support factors. If your shot falters, then suddenly your pike and cavalry lose support and the line deteriorates. So the rules demonstrate the theme of the period of close cooperation between unit types. What you lose with DBA RRR is the ability to have any kind of battle of any size.

Addendum, for pistols supported by shot you could have a pistol element with the shot placed behind the pistol. Let the shot fire on enemy mounted defensively before combat in the enemy bound...but I digress...

I don't expect Tony or the other FADBAGers to rewrite DBA RRR. Maybe someday I'll sit down and write a full set of rules trying to start with the Tercio or pike and shot block as the fundamental game unit, even if it means having some armies have more elements than others. I think DBA RRR is a fine game which succeeds, as PB might have said, in confronting commanders with some of the problems faced by historical generals. As previously noted, this would mean the increased emphasis on combined arms during the pike and shot era. I can also pretend that a unit of 2 pike and 2 shot actually represents 3 historical tercios, just in a very abstract way. But, I still think that starting with the tercio/pike shot regiment as the fundamental unit would be a better way to go. I think that making them 'multi base' is needed to reflect their historical staying power.

Mike

[michael guth]

A cavalry element would represent 2 historical 'squadrons'.....

[timurilank]

I understand the problems depicting the 'tercio' and other large mixed formation with a 12 element based army. Within the ancient lists, there are mixed bow/crossbow and spear elements, my first thoughts were to mix pike and shot on the same base (4 pike, 4 shot on 40x30mm base), but the scale is not correct.

The idea of splitting an element of shot to flank the pike would encounter resistance, but using two pike elements with two shot turned towards the flanks might work. The tercio would count as one shot firing in any directing and require an extra pip to move.

[kfenstermaker]

I guess for me it comes down to wanting to see a Spanish tercio being distinct from a Swiss pike block or a unit of ECW pike/shot. Trying to do this within the 12 elements and standard unit types and basing is probably a fools errand. When you start adding elements and troop types and changing basing then you are designing a new game.
On the other hand, maybe I should beat my Scots into shape and bring them to some of the NAGS gatherings to get my feet wet with DBA-RRR before I start tapping the keyboard. :rolleyes

Keith

[michael guth]

The question is whether you can design a game with 20 troop types and 12 manoeuvre elements a side which has less than 200 pages of rules, can be played in say, 90 minutes, uses DBX basing, and uses DBX mechanisms for command control and combat.

With Tony's variant you need to suspend disbelief a bit and pretend that four elements of pike and 2 elements of shot represent 4-6 actual tercios. Making an actual Tercio/Kiel/T Brigade/Colunella troop type makes sense to me from an army list viewpoint. But, it runs into the dull knife problem of the DBA combat system, namely, that a one combat factor difference can more than double the combat result likelihood. So, if I have you at 4vs4, we each need a 6-1. If I have you at 4-3 then you CANNOT kill me, and I kill you 1/9 times.....

Just my opionion, but this is a problem for pike and shot game design because a prominent feature of the period is that casualties are heavy on both the winning and the losing side. Contrast this with ancient battles where a winning side (say attacking at 4-3) would have very few casualties, (yes, there are exceptions). The large Keils and Tercios had significant resisting power which is why I think you will need a step reduction approach to combat, the four base pike/shot block.

Mike

[Cromwell]

I recently tried this out for an ECW battle.

I used one shot element with a pike elemet in rear support. They moved as a single element.

In combat the shot carried out any shooting with no support from the pikes. Also is forced to recoil by shot the both elements recoil. If an element is destroyed by shot then it is the shot element that is removed and the pike element recoils.
In hand to hand combat the pikes fight using their factor with + 1 for support from the shot (Musketeers using muskets as clubs or firing at targets of opportunity). If the result is recoil the both pike and shot recoil. If the result is destroyed then only the pike element is removed and the shot recoil.
If the mixed element is in contact both to the front and the flank/rear then a recoil or destroyed results in both shot and pike elements being destroyed.

I tried this out the other day and I was pleased with the result.

[michael guth]

The DBX based rule set Maximillian also allows pike to support shot from behind. Many people don't realize that this is how the Swedish T brigade is described as working as well.

A problem with the DBX system is that it is hard to vary unit frontages. There is no easy way to contrast a thinner more linear ECW pike and shot block with an earlier Imperial Tercio.

Next up, try this. Pike +4 against foot in close combat, Foot, -2 for fighting against a supporting rank of pike. If you're using the DBA RRR rules, I think the pike should be +4 versus shooting as well. At +3 they are just pincushions, and an accident waiting to happen to your battleline.

[Victor]

If I was to play DBA-RRR, using monotype bases (eg all shot or all pike on the one element) I'd be tempted to use the same support rules as Psiloi does for Blade, Spear etc in DBA. So one pike element can support up to three shot in this way. But, in doing so, I would change shot factors (along with pike), so would probably be too many changes.

Though with my 6mm ECW/30YW army, I use composite bases of pike & shot instead, and had to write my own home grown DBA variant to make it work.

[Pavane]

If I was to play DBA-RRR, using monotype bases (eg all shot or all pike on the one element) I'd be tempted to use the same support rules as Psiloi does for Blade, Spear etc in DBA. So one pike element can support up to three shot in this way. But, in doing so, I would change shot factors (along with pike), so would probably be too many changes.

Though with my 6mm ECW/30YW army, I use composite bases of pike & shot instead, and had to write my own home grown DBA variant to make it work.
The problem with tinkering in this way is that it will upset the Book III armies who have replaced the pike with bayonet and therefore have no Pk elements. Also, the rationale for Psiloi support is that they are 1-2 AP in DBM and would therefore be present in much greater quantities (i.e 3:1).

[Victor]

The problem with tinkering in this way is that it will upset the Book III armies who have replaced the pike with bayonet and therefore have no Pk elements. Also, the rationale for Psiloi support is that they are 1-2 AP in DBM and would therefore be present in much greater quantities (i.e 3:1).

Interesting point, I never thought a the psiloi support in that manner. With pike, I was thinking the opposite, in that one element of pike is too large a homogenous formation for the scale of DBA in this period. By being able to support three shot elements, it basically is splitting into three, so we end up with the equivalent of three pike & shot battalions represented by 4 elements.

I'd actually rate shot with bayonet a different troop type, who don't need pike support but have better factors - in this way a three element wide bayonet group will be able to take on the 4 element pike & shot mix, representing better efficiency and more linear tactics of later times.

[Pavane]

I'd actually rate shot with bayonet a different troop type, who don't need pike support but have better factors - in this way a three element wide bayonet group will be able to take on the 4 element pike & shot mix, representing better efficiency and more linear tactics of later times.

In DBR there are four shot types: three roughly based on early, middle and late periods and one based on tactical doctrine. It is challenging to get the combat relationships right in DBA-RRR when factors of troops types found in DBA cannot be changed, and multiple new troop types have to be condensed into one.

[Victor]

In DBR there are four shot types: three roughly based on early, middle and late periods and one based on tactical doctrine. It is challenging to get the combat relationships right in DBA-RRR when factors of troops types found in DBA cannot be changed, and multiple new troop types have to be condensed into one.

An example of a DBA period adaption that distinguishes between bayonets and normal muskets is the classic "Renaissance DBA revisited". There is a copy at;

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA%20Renassiance%202.pdf

[Pavane]

An example of a DBA period adaption that distinguishes between bayonets and normal muskets is the classic "Renaissance DBA revisited". There is a copy at;

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA%20Renassiance%202.pdf

I hadn't seen that document before, and it looks very interesting. I'll have a look in more detail later.

EDIT:
I am impressed. Of the new troop types, the Reiter and Pike&Shot are the most controversial. I would give the Reiter a +3 vs. mounted so that they could survive a bound against Cv (Pi(O)/Si from DBR), but I like the QK against foot at +2 (who cannot receive rear support). My primary complaint about the P&S is that it is not compatible with DBR, but I think that one could use 2 elements to be used instead/as well (40mm square, 1 element equiv., both die) it might work. I like the linear obstacles, LO deployment, camps, looting and artillery capture rules and would like to see them in DBA-RRR.

[Victor]

I hadn't seen that document before, and it looks very interesting. I'll have a look in more detail later.

EDIT:
I am impressed. Of the new troop types, the Reiter and Pike&Shot are the most controversial. I would give the Reiter a +3 vs. mounted so that they could survive a bound against Cv (Pi(O)/Si from DBR), but I like the QK against foot at +2 (who cannot receive rear support). My primary complaint about the P&S is that it is not compatible with DBR, but I think that one could use 2 elements to be used instead/as well (40mm square, 1 element equiv., both die) it might work. I like the linear obstacles, LO deployment, camps, looting and artillery capture rules and would like to see them in DBA-RRR.

It's in serious need of an upgrade to the latest DBA version, but full of lots of original ideas, particularly as it was written before DBR came out. The Reiter are interesting, as the writer hit upon a quasi LH type that could QK foot, before it happened in DBA2. Though they do need beefing up, especially as LH now has the QK aswell, making them not as attractive as a seperate type. Maybe your suggested +3 v mounted is the simplest answer.

[Draigcoch]

Although I enjoyed the magazine article I thought that at +5 the combined P&S unit was too powerful in melee AND it couldn't shoot! This made me look at the base factors for individual pike and shot units. The difference is only 1 (3 to 4).

I have therefore been experimenting with variable proportions of Pike to Shot in mixed units. The most common I have found are one-quarter / half / three-quarters.

The first four tables shows a continuum from All Pike to All Shot units. The last two are special cases where pike and/or shot face each other.

All Pike 1 in 4 2 in 4 3 in 4 All Shot
Pike v Mtd 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 Shot v Mtd
Pike v Foot 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 Shot v Foot

Doubling (NOT v Pike or shot) All Shot
v Mtd 8 8 7 7 6 Shot v Mtd
v Foot 6 7 7 8 8 Shot v Foot

Push-back (NOT v Pike or shot) All Shot
v Mtd 5 5 5 4 4 Shot v Mtd
v Foot 4 4 5 5 5 Shot v Foot

Shoot at All Shot
v Mtd 0 1 2 3 4 Shot v Mtd
v Foot 0 1 2 2 3 Shot v Foot

Doubling
Pike v Shot 6 7 7 8 8 Shot v Pike

Push-back
Pike v Shot 4 4 5 5 5 Shot v Pike

I also noticed that “Light Horse, Dragoons – Destroyed by any Mounted, Artillery, Bows, SHOT, Skirmishers, or if in bad going. If not, flee.” I would suggest restricting this effect to 3 / 4 and full shot units only.

My 4 battles have produced inconclusive results. If anyone is prepared to give this idea a try then please provide feedback.

PS Sorry I can't seem to get the figures to line up properly.

[Cromwell]

I tried an experiment.

I rebased some ECW 10mm figures so that for foot one element contained both pike and shot in the usual pike in centre and shot on flanks set up.
Problem is you end up with two pike in the centre and one shot on each flank but by using 10mm or smaller figures more troops can be put onto the base thus giving a better overall appearance.

I used DBRRR rules but if engaged in distance shooting the factors for shot are used but in close combat pike factors are used. All results effect the element as a whole.

The results were good. But I am a little concerned that combined pike/shot on one base is distorting the scale, however it looks better than seperate pike and shot elements.

[timurilank]

After reading this topic again, I am inclined to believe the period will need to be segmented into three sections; multiple bases for the larger Tercio formations, single base with both figure types for the reforms of Maurits and a later period when the pike had all but disappeared.

Unfortunately, there would be exceptions to defining the segmentation, as the unwieldy Tercio formations had to adjust to meet the guerilla tactics of the Dutch and the nature of the terrain. From the Tercio, the smaller formation of "battalion" evolved.

[Victor]

The results were good. But I am a little concerned that combined pike/shot on one base is distorting the scale, however it looks better than seperate pike and shot elements.

Being on the one base is actually correct for scale, as theoretically one foot element is 1000 men in DBA, which approximates to a pike & shot battalion.

[Victor]

After reading this topic again, I am inclined to believe the period will need to be segmented into three sections; multiple bases for the larger Tercio formations, single base with both figure types for the reforms of Maurits and a later period when the pike had all but disappeared.

Unfortunately, there would be exceptions to defining the segmentation, as the unwieldy Tercio formations had to adjust to meet the guerilla tactics of the Dutch and the nature of the terrain. From the Tercio, the smaller formation of "battalion" evolved.

I've had lots of games experimenting with mixed pike & shot with 6mm figures. The 4 pike & shot variants I'm using that seem to be working at the moment are;

Dutch/ECW style pike & shot: treat as spears (+4/+4) but can shoot to 200 paces.

Older style German or tercio type: treat as pike (+3/+4) but can shoot to 200 paces - the second rank can support shoot the first, so can match the Dutch Style in shooting if double ranked, but can beat it in melee if double ranked.

Salvo firers: blades (no distant shooting, but the high cf vs foot represents salvo), which is similar to the treatment in the Renaissance revisted article. They need to move into close combat asap (as do the pikes) to minimise being shot at from a distance.

Janissaries & Eastern shot with swords (eg cossacks/haiduks): warbands that can shoot to 200 paces, but no rear rank. Shooting rules as per artillery, eg can shoot only if didn't move in own bound or in enemy bound if shot at.

All distant shooting is conducted using "against foot" factors, even against mounted, otherwise the shooting gets too skewed.

So far I've gotten historical results doing this in straight 12 element games. The shooting pike generally gets beaten by blades (eg Swedes beating Imperialists) as its the basic DBA interaction where blades will win as the pikes are forced to contract frontage. The shooting spear has worked aswell, generally being be beaten by the blades and shooting pike even though they look tough on paper.

[Victor]

Here are some images of a 1st attempt of a refight of Lutter (1626) that was tried;

The Imperial Deployment;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~vjarmusz/Lutter2.jpg

The Danish Deployment;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~vjarmusz/Lutter4.jpg

The Imperialists after the river crossing;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~vjarmusz/Lutter1.jpg

Towards the end, the Imperialsts were getting badly mauled in different areas but managed to take out a last minute win after luckily destroying the Danish CIC element;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~vjarmusz/Lutter3.jpg

In hindsight there were some problems with the positioning of the initial deployment and terrain, but overall, the "shooting spear" of the Danes proved too tough for the massed "shooting pike" of the Imperialists, even though the Danes unluckily lost.

[Martyn]

Victor,

Great looking figures.
Just a quick query, what base size and basing convention did you use.

One of my (many) future projects is 6mm ECW and I am keen to gather some ideas.

Thanks,

[Victor]

Victor,

Great looking figures.
Just a quick query, what base size and basing convention did you use.

One of my (many) future projects is 6mm ECW and I am keen to gather some ideas.

Thanks,

I base everything on 20mm square bases with magnetic bottoms. Shot is 12 figures (2 ranks of 3), Pike 8 (2 ranks of 4), heavy cav 3 figures, light cav 2, and artillery 1 per base. I then have metal bases (or movement stand) that are 60mm wide by 20mm deep that fits three of the foot or artillery bases, and 60mm wide by 40mm deep to fit 6 cavalry bases.

This seems to keep the figure proportions correct for DBA, eg pike & shot has 20 figures (2 bases of 6 shot, 1 base of 8 pike), whereas cavalry has 15 bases (5 bases of 2) - though I fill the 6th base spot for mounted (as a 60x40 fits 6 bases) with a lone officer figure or standard bearer. So 20 figs div by 5 is 4, 15 div by 5 is 3 - so it has the same 4 figs to 3 figs ratio of DBA. It's as if DBA figure ratios represent cavalry by the regiment, and foot by the battalion. With light foot, I use 2 bases of shot (12 fgs) and in the middle either an lone foot officer figure or sometime light guns depending on what it is.

Putting them on 20mm magnetic bases also allows for them to be modular and usable for other rulesets or representing different formations.

[Martyn]

I base everything on 20mm square bases with magnetic bottoms. Shot is 12 figures (2 ranks of 3), Pike 8 (2 ranks of 4), heavy cav 3 figures, light cav 2, and artillery 1 per base. I then have metal bases (or movement stand) that are 60mm wide by 20mm deep that fits three of the foot or artillery bases, and 60mm wide by 40mm deep to fit 6 cavalry bases.

This seems to keep the figure proportions correct for DBA, eg pike & shot has 20 figures (2 bases of 6 shot, 1 base of 8 pike), whereas cavalry has 15 bases (5 bases of 2) - though I fill the 6th base spot for mounted (as a 60x40 fits 6 bases) with a lone officer figure or standard bearer. So 20 figs div by 5 is 4, 15 div by 5 is 3 - so it has the same 4 figs to 3 figs ratio of DBA. It's as if DBA figure ratios represent cavalry by the regiment, and foot by the battalion. With light foot, I use 2 bases of shot (12 fgs) and in the middle either an lone foot officer figure or sometime light guns depending on what it is.

Putting them on 20mm magnetic bases also allows for them to be modular and usable for other rulesets or representing different formations.

Thanks Victor, :up

That is very ingenious, yet another of my ongoing projects is what to do with a large collection of 6mm Nappys.

Currently based for WRG 1645-1845 I want to do something with them but with the different basing for this, DBN, Humberside and the proposed HFG I am struggling to make any decision. :???

This may be the way to go.

[timurilank]

Thanks Victor, :up

That is very ingenious, yet another of my ongoing projects is what to do with a large collection of 6mm Nappys.

Currently based for WRG 1645-1845 I want to do something with them but with the different basing for this, DBN, Humberside and the proposed HFG I am struggling to make any decision. :???

This may be the way to go.


We also use the WRG 1645-1845 rule set but changed the scale to 1:25 and increased the linear scale, 30mm = 50 paces. No other rule changes were made, but the extra rank on a 30mm x 30mm base greatly improved the appearance.

However, for quick games, we use the same based figures (SYW) with the DBA-HX rules. Using three commands a side on a 60cm x 120cm board, the smaller base frontage is not a real problem, in fact you gain some maneuver room. With this second option, we can play many of the smaller conflicts for our latest campaign in Silesia 1757.

Here is an example of a battle fought in Germany between the French and Allies:

http://18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.com/2011_01_09_archive.html

[Arcangeli]

Hello! (First post on the forums)

I am currently converting my 2mm ECW armies into DBA and at this scale it is much more feasible to have the pike and shot mounted together on one element, particularly as the miniatures are already modelled that way.

I am tempted to simply treat these elements as standard shot (+4, +4, 100p range etc.) as in a straight fight they "should" defeat enemy mounted troops. Especially if supported.

It is a bit concerning about the mounted "quick kill" however so would be tempted to remove that if it starts messing up the games and history. Hopefully I should have some games in the next few weeks so can test it out.

(To be honest as long as both forces are treated equally I won't have a problem!)