What are the fundamental characteristics of the Renaissance period that should be used to draw up a set of rules, as opposed to modifying an existing set, of usually Ancients rules? What the important factors and elements that give this period its distinctive feel? What features have been used by previous game designers which could be used to model these factors?

Battlefield to Board

Lutzen 1632 as viewed from the Imperial right flank

Since the aim of the rules should be to represent major battles, they need an appropriate ground scale. Lützen (1632) would be a good example to use and could be accommodated within a 2.5 km square so this should be the size to accommodate on a standard sized 6’ x 4’ or 1.8 m x 1.2 m table. This gives us a ground scale of 1: 2,000 or 1 mm equals 2 meter. By comparison, a set of rules like DBR (1: 1,250) or Tilly’s Very Bad Day (uses 1 Base Width (2 TUM) of 80 mm would roughly be equalent to 250 meters. This gives 1mm equals 3 meters or 1: 3,000) while Twilight of the Divine Right (Regimental scale is 1:2,500) is about the same. Fitting Lützen onto a 4’ by 4’ table means that the larger Breitenfeld, White Mountain and Nordlingen, all larger battles, could all be accommodated on a 6’ or 8’ by 4’ table. In the Age of Battles Project, the idea is to use a realistic ground scale and to further the idea of landscape as a factor in those battles. So, the battles are fought on scale maps from the Ferraris maps of Belgium from 1770 and terrain pieces added on top, as seen in the picture above.

Figure removal

Most sets of rules use some element of 'figure removal' to denote casualties suffered by a formation, with one exception, which is the DBX family or more specifically DBR DB-RRR and FOG-R. The original wargamers removed figures from the formations, however modern designers use micro-dice, tokens or clever counters to denote losses but in reality it all amounts to the same thing. In 1970s we used Napoleonic battalions of 36 figures and reckoned a unit routed/retired when half of them were gone, while in the 1990s battalions shrank to 24 or 12 figures with 6 removed. After 2000, designers attached 2,3,6 or even 12 counters to a unit to denote that loss to the unit before it routed or was removed from play. Figure removal did away with the requirement to keep paper records for each unit and the gave the enemy player

The sole exception to this, DBX used 'elements' of 100 or more soldiers who suffered casualties on a 'bang your dead' principle, and were not formed into permanent formations or units but rather into temporary 'groups'. FOG-R moved away from this principle in that it defined specific formations made up of elements, formed into specifically defined shapes. However, this had the disadvantage of needing a formation morale test, whereas the original DBA had folded combat and morale into one overall calculation. In essence, elements stayed fighting until they were destroyed, rather than suffering losses and finally routing after reaching the limit of half the unit as losses.

Renaissance rules should aim to show the most important level of organisation for the period and since the main focus of the period were the different tactical systems adopted by the various armies, this would indicate that we should show sufficient detail at the battalion/squadron/brigade level to distinguish between the Dutch school, Swedish school, etc. This leads us to the idea of using squadron/brigade sized formations broken down into individual sub-units to allow different formations to be shown. I am afraid that this runs counter to the prevailing trend for 'big bases' which allow elements of any base sized to be used and which assume that all the tactical niceties take place, unseen, with the area covered by the big base.

This would draw me towards a looser type of FOG-R type set up, where you have an order of battle which defines your formations, which in turn are made up of elements of the various troops types in the brigade. Taking the Dutch Brigade as our model, an element of 250 musketeers and an element of 250 pikemen could portray the battalion and in turn the larger brigade (2 battalions) and its various tactical forms, with the brigade destroyed after the loss of two elements. The Dutch cavalry 'cornet' of 15 files and 5 ranks or 75 men was formed into a squadron of three cornets or 210 cavalrymen. This might form suitable element/formation combination or perhaps a squadron and a brigade might work better with the infantry formations.

Changing balance of hand-to-hand and distant combat

One of the key distinguishing features of the Renaissance was the mixing of different weapon types within a formation, pikes, muskets, arquebusiers, calivers, halberds and swordsmen all used within a battalion/squadron/brigade. They all had different capabilities, pikemen marched more slowly than musketeers and fought more defensively, largely against cavalry, while musketeers took the fight to the enemy, yet had limited hand-to-hand capability with only clubbed muskets and a cheap sword. Similarly, in Spanish service the arquebusier 'sleeves' could be detached from the tercio as independent skirmishers, who with their lighter weapons were the most mobile of all, leaving the heavier musketeers to defend the tercio's main body of pikemen. The number of these troops in each formation changed over time and their capabilities changed too as tactics, training and drill improved or declined. So using elements of one specific weapon type would help us show these differences in different periods

Again, this would draw me to using 250 man elements, each of a specific shape and size to denote the capabilities of these different troops types being formed into formations which reflect their historical groupings. For cavalry, its is more straightforward since types tended not to be mixed together. A choice of 250 soldiers element means that a typical Lutzen sized army of 20,000 men would be represented by 80 elements formed into 12 to 15 formations (4-6 elements each). The changing balance between hand-to-hand and distant combat means choosing a different mix of elements for each period and in some cases different combat gradings.

Some players are wedded to the idea of a 'big bases' single formation which incorporates a combined musketeer/pikeman scoring system, for which I can understand the attraction, simply from the point of view of ease of play. However. I think the advantages of a 'defined' formation (in the army order of battle,) made up of specific individual elements allows a certain nuance in play and portrays the way formations actually fought. It allows for ‘figure removal’ in a limited number of steps and gets rid of the alternative of counters, markers and other clutter. The rules would have to reflect the way in which the unit was used, so musketeers should be able to easily slip behind the pike block when attacked by cavalry and likewise protect their pikemen from other musketeers by lining up in front of them. We do not read of pike blocks being mown down by musketeers while their comrades looked on, so it should not be possible in the game. Having said that, the ‘big bases’ community could be included in the rules by using a ‘combination’ type of formation with a joint musketeer/pikeman combat capability or in fact several, which allowed for the changing balance of musketeers. To do this formations would

The thorny issue of Basing

So many modern sets of rules now rely on the concept of Base Widths and one can appreciate why, as it is a huge commitment to rebase an army just to meet the requirements of a new club set of rules, which you may abandon a few months later. In a way the game designers are right, everything is relative. If your troops are based on old WRG 30mm bases, then using that as a standard unit of measurement seems sensible. My problem is that this idea of 'relativity' has now been stretched too far and become divorced from any idea of a proper ground scale. As a rule of thumb the frontage of a battalion (say 600 men in three ranks, 200 files at 0.75m a file,) should be the effective range of their muskets and the same applies to a Swedish Squadron/Brigade (130m across), so firing ranges should be 1 Base width in front of a formation, but I have seen up to 4 BW given as a musket range which completely distorts the firing/hand-to-hand balance. Moreover with the period featuring formations with files 60 ranks deep, 10 ranks deep and 6 ranks deep, I think that it might be a good idea to have the fixed ground scale as discussed in the first section and then implement it on the units so that they are their historic size. With 3D printing these days it should not be too difficult in micro scales such as 2mm and 3mm and we will see what a difference it makes. Or use your standard based troops with a suitably adjusted ground scale so that I BW is 130m across.

Conclusion

My original idea of fighting historic battles in 2mm at a ground scale of 1: 2,000 on historic camps translates well into the Renaissance period. The rules should highlight the main features of the period which are the squadron/brigade level and low level tactics. So a modified DBR/FOG-R approach using 250-man elements to form formations, a simple 'bang your dead' type of play system and using correctly sized formation might be the way forward. Having said that I believe that DBR overstresses the value of firepower in the Renaissance period and my next blog post addresses some of the ways in which is might be ‘toned down’.