DBA-RRR Development Ideas

As per Tony's suggestion I created a new thread for the development of DBA-RRR. Here are my initial suggestions:

DRAGOONS: Their combat values should be one less than Shot (+3 vs foot, +2 vs mounted). They should not suffer the -2 BGo penalty, and should move at the same speed as Shot in BGo. They should have the same shooting range as Shot, not double. Dragoons should be included in the list of elements providing -1 Flank Support to Pi or Pk against mounted. They should be QKed by all mounted in GGo, like Shot, not just Kn.

SHOT: The shooting range should be changed to 200p. This reflects DBR Sh(O), the average type of shot, instead of the early period inferior Shot now being used. A more complicated way to show the evolution of gunpowder weapons over the time period is to have three types: Shot-A(rquebus) 100p range, Shot-M(usket) 200p range, and Shot-F(irelock) 200p range and +3 vs. mounted/+5 vs. foot, for Sh(I), Sh(O), and Sh(S) respectively.

ARTILLERY: Instead of one generic artillery type, it would be better to have light, infantry support guns (organ guns) and heavy cannons. The heavy artillery (Art) is fine as is, except that the movement should be 100p in GGo and 200p along a road. Light artillery (LArt) is treated as Shot in all respects except that it is on a 40mm square base (just like LCh are the same as Cv).

PISTOLS: Pi(O/S) convert to Pistols, and Pi(I) convert to Cavalry as DBA-RRR stands. Pi(F) should convert to Knights. This will not create a perfect representation of the interactions of ECW cavalry over the course of the whole war, but rather a broad interpretation. Perfection would require too many rules.

KNIGHTS: I would include Knights in the -1 Flank Support Factor list of elements supported by Shot/Dragoons. As mentioned above, armies would often use Shot or Dragoons to support their Knights or Pistols against enemy mounted.

Alrighty then, this should be good for all of us not wanting to play DBR Condensed and still play Renaissance armies.

DRAGOONS: I thought they were also prone to get overrun by regular infantry also, is that not true? I like the QK vs all mounted and Flank Support and BGo penalty not effecting them. I am going to try this in a couple of games and see how it works out.

SHOT: I agree with the increased range. However is you split SHOT into three cats, then would that increase the confusion on the table top trying to remember which is which? and not to mention the sorting out the difference in each army list. . .

ARTILLERY: I am still not convince "yet" that Arty needs to be split, it adds more elements to choose from while not really improving the game play much, ie, DBA-HX has Arty and Cannons does it work well? I dont know cuz I havent played armies with them in DBA-HX yet :-D

PISTOLS: Converting the Pi in the different armies would take care of your suggestion. Were the Pi(F) better than Kn in DBR?

KNIGHTS: Seems like that would make since especially when the KN would be moving slower so the Sh/Dr could support them better that faster cavalry.

Great thread Will. I am looking forward to dashing about ideas and see what feels right.

This is quite interesting.

In my own "grand tactical level" DBA conversion to the 30YW and have come to running dragoons as quasi-Ax (similar to above). I also started with one artillery type only (to keep it simple), but came to the conclusion that lighter battalion guns should be represented aswell as they are crucial in demonstrating the technological development of the various forces involved from the early 30YW to the later 30YW.

Great thread and I'll add my comments quickly.

I must admit Art is not DBA's strong point so I sort of agree with Teacherdude as adding extra items/rules may just complicate this. You can always have the lighter battalion guns as double depth shot elements - just like DBA has 5Wb elements. That way there are no extra units needed. The same is true with Shot - as long as the range is 200 paces and dragoons 100. The three types add more granularity which is great but with only 12 elements that's only so good.

For pistols why not give the option of having a DBR Pi(f) as either pistols or Knight in the army lists? That way a player can decide which way they feel it is better represented. You could even do that in some other cases as well. That's in some ways what the DBA-Hx did and it seems to solve many issues where there are different views as to the use and effectiveness of troops.

It changes the list creation from just copying DBR lists but that's not a bad thing as the lists are far from perfect, as I mentioned in a different thread. DBR lists are far from perfect starting points as a sole point of reference, but as good as anything I guess.

As to the Kn's flank support, assuming we are talking about the '+1 If Shot fighting against any Mounted or Warband while flanked by Pikes or Pistols' then I'm not sure that there is the synergy for knights there would be with later combined arms, which this flank support is modeling. I can't find a '-1' but may be missing something if you guys mean something else and the other flank factor already includes knights as a target but again I would not include knights as an extra trigger unit.

This is because these factors are to help the Shot not the other troops and shot did not 'duck into' lance armed troops to hide from enemy mounted or provide mutual coverage to my knowledge the same way they did Pike and controlled Pistol armed mounted units. Knights are aggressive elements and really were not a part of the controlled reformation Pike, Shot and Horse 'combined arms/mutual support' concept's which is what this rule seems to be trying to reflect.

Thus, IMO it makes much more sense for knight's not to be included here, as this linked support just did not happen for the majority of the troops covered in the Knight classification. Knights based troops did not work that closely with the same mutual co-operation to support shot as the later and more controlled pistol armed horse and pike. Fundamentally they fought differently and thus no additional flank support would be my vote - the other units had a much closer tie in of mutual support to get that bonus.

Mark

The -1 reference is from here:

Flank Support
-1 If Mounted fighting either Pistols or Pikes, if these are flanked by Shot.

Now that i have thought about it a bit, it makes sense that the Pi and Pk get the support from Sh.

However, I am gonna have to actually play a few more games with the rules and elements as presented to see how it feels. Then add in some of these items being suggested to see how if any, it changes or adds to the enjoyment of the game.

Looking forward to more discussion and the rest of Tony's dedication to converting the DBR lists for us to play with and "critique", in a good way. Tony your work is excellent and very much appreciated.

Will, looking forward to more of your thoughts as well as Mark and Victor. And anyone else willing to join in "-)

I am glad this thread has developed but solely as a learning tool for me. This period is not one of my strong suits so I dare not contribute out of ignorance. I am watching closely however; since I always lean towards caution when rules are tweaked due to supposed historical performances of various troop types. The scale of DBx does not allow for every "justification" of a particular troop type's performance. I give you the case of Mongol "feigned flight" which is in no way modeled in DBA and cannot be modeled no matter how historical it was. The same goes for the Legions' line relief system. The Roman "blades" were better than everyone else's "blades" but their sub system was far superior. We cannot model this so it must be accepted within the DBx system. This discussion of Pi(F) and it classification and "historical use" is just one of those things that may have to be generally accepted as the way it is because it cannot be modeled without too many rules not in the spirit of DBx simplicity.

Good work gents and I look forward to more discussion.

Interesting discussion. One of the things that I always found curious was that there were no provisions for Tercios in DBR. Armati has them, but no mention in DBx rules. I find it surprising because it was a big part of some of the armies (Spanish and Imperial ones). One way I had thought about this could be modeled is allow a “Tercio”group to consist of 2x Sh and 2x Pk. The Pk would be back-to-back in the middle and be flanked by a Sh on either side, but facing perpendicular to the Pk (ie: outwards). This would allow all-around fire, but at a -1. (not as effective)

Yep great thread and comments.

As for Tercios, I think that's what the flank support rules are trying to reflect - the advantage of combined arms which was starting and developed with trained units. That's why I was against lancers getting those advantages as lancers operated more as independent units to my knowledge (which is far from perfect in the earlier period).

As a couple more comments - without the spit of shot as proposed by Will these rules will only really work till approx 1660 to 1700 or so in Western Europe. The bayonet changed all the foot to mounted 'rules of war' and the pike block did not last that much longer after the bayonet became widely used. So, without modeling that your army lists especially for DBR book 3 will start to be less than perfect.

Also, the rules have pistols at +4 vs foot /+4 vs mounted by quick killed by knights if beaten. I wonder if that makes them too good against other mounted and too vulnerable vs. knights. After all the in battles in Eastern Europe in this period 'pistols' were effective troops but did not change the state of play or replace knights in the Polish and Latvian armies. Many of the mounted engagements on the steps were very even from my understanding and the Pi factors may be too high when reflecting those combats.

Maybe having them as +4 vs foot /+3 vs mounted but without the quick kill from knights might better provide an overall reflective and balanced result. That still gives knights the edge and also makes these more vulnerable and less effective to other types of mounted troops.

Well just random thoughts.

Mark

Originally Posted by Tony Aguilar

Interesting discussion. One of the things that I always found curious was that there were no provisions for Tercios in DBR. Armati has them, but no mention in DBx rules. I find it surprising because it was a big part of some of the armies (Spanish and Imperial ones). One way I had thought about this could be modeled is allow a “Tercio”group to consist of 2x Sh and 2x Pk. The Pk would be back-to-back in the middle and be flanked by a Sh on either side, but facing perpendicular to the Pk (ie: outwards). This would allow all-around fire, but at a -1. (not as effective)

Isn't that handled by the rules themselves with the support modifiers by unit type? Pk & Sh both get a rear support factor and additional flank support factors by Pk/Sh/Pi. If I am correct, most countries had some form/modification of the Spanish Tercio model. You may be right but I think the game system allows us to form our own in many cases albeit without the all around shooting ability.

Frank

Originally Posted by TeacherDude

DRAGOONS: I thought they were also prone to get overrun by regular infantry also, is that not true?

Overrun is a strong word. Without Pike support, they would be overmatched by combined arms regiments unless in BGo. Remember that they should be one combat factor less than Shot, so they will tend to be used in their historical role of hugging BGo.

Originally Posted by TeacherDude

SHOT: I agree with the increased range. However is you split SHOT into three cats, then would that increase the confusion on the table top trying to remember which is which? and not to mention the sorting out the difference in each army list. . .

I am not strongly advocating three types of Shot as one can argue that it is against the spirit of DBA. Since this is a discussion I thought I would throw the idea out. The renaissance is all about the gradual replacement of muscle power with machine, with Shot being the perfect example. Generally, armies in DBR have only one kind of Shot depending on the era. They may have a small number of transitional elements (in a large DBR game), but the onus is on the owner to differentiate them.

Originally Posted by TeacherDude

ARTILLERY: I am still not convince "yet" that Arty needs to be split, it adds more elements to choose from while not really improving the game play much, ie, DBA-HX has Arty and Cannons does it work well? I dont know cuz I havent played armies with them in DBA-HX yet :-D

There were definately two classes of artillery, fulfilling two different roles on the battlefield. In DBR Art(I) represents organ guns, which can advance at the same speed as Pikes but cannot voluntarily enter close combat. The big guns were generally deployed at the start of the battle and not moved. DBA-HX/RRR proposes to have one Art type that moves like an organ gun but fires like heavy cannon. It is just wrong. If you want to simplify, reduce the speed of Art and declare that the organ guns are factored into the infantry units at this scale.

Originally Posted by TeacherDude

PISTOLS: Converting the Pi in the different armies would take care of your suggestion. Were the Pi(F) better than Kn in DBR?.

Kn in DBR are +3 vs. mounted, so their QK against Pi is mitigated somewhat. The main contention with Pi(F) is how they interact with other Pi. As Mark pointed out ECW Cavaliers Pi(F) tended to charge the early war Parliamentarian Pi(I), rout them and follow them off the battlefield for the rest of the battle. Over the course of the war Parliamentarian horse improved, Pi(O), and they were more evenly matched. How to simply simulate this with one element type in DBx has been elusive.

Originally Posted by TeacherDude

KNIGHTS: Seems like that would make since especially when the KN would be moving slower so the Sh/Dr could support them better that faster cavalry..

Maurice of Nassau stiffened his lancers with commanded groups of shot, so this is not just a Pistols tactic.

EDIT: spelling