Hot on the heels of 'Dominion of the Spear' now comes 'Dominion of Pike and Shot' with added artillery bombardments! There seem to have been a flurry of blog posts on both sets recently, but mine have been languishing in my blog post backlog as I usually stack up a couple of months worth. Anyway, here is my contribution.
Unsurprisingly this set covers Renaissance warfare from the late 1400s to late 1600s. This is a period I have repeatedly tried to get into, and I've been through a few iterations of published rules and some homegrown stuff but never really got anything which satisfied although I'd really like to fight some more of the major battles of the English Civil War and Thirty Years War.
Anyway, the whole left flank/centre/right flank/reserve approach of DoS worked great for Ancients and is equally applicable to this period, and mirrors the approach in my favourite rules for the period 'Marston Less' which uses a three column grid.
The rules are very similar to their Ancient cousins, with a brief description of the mechanics, a longer description of the design decisions and dozens upon dozens of Army Lists for various theatres and periods, plus a QRS.
Again like their ancient cousins, units are differentiated as fire or melee and with extra characteristics to make them more (or less) formidable. It is all about the matchups, like DBA, but without all the geometry. There is a scenario book in the offing, but I was impatient and just bought the rules as between Cassells 'Battles in Britain' and 'Europes Tragedy' about the Thirty Years War, I have zillions of scenarios to try out.
Anyway, having had a brief look at Edge Hill (again) , I decided to just try out a generic early ECW engagement. 1642 Royalists vs Parliamentarians as I wanted to get some toys on the table and roll dice. I'll do this blow-by-blow as there are some new unit types and mechanisms.
The respective armies. The toys are my generic 2mm pike and shot/horse and musket units albeit originally painted up for the WSS and Twilight of the Sun King in the main, with the pikes, tercios, Gendarmes etc added later.
Royalists (top) have 2 x pike units (with some muskets) and 1 x musket unit (with some pikes) plus 2 x elite cavaliers (melee cavalry). They are the attackers and deployed with the cavalry on the wings and their musket brigade in the centre with the pike heavy units in reserve.
The Roundheads have got 3 x musket units (with some pikes), 2 x melee cavalry (pistols) and 1 x artillery unit. These are all average units so the Royalists have an advantage in melee cavalry as theirs are elite. The artillery is a new unit type and most effective against armoured infantry, which neither side has. I put this in reserve, which may have been an error, so the Roundhead front line was also cavalry on the wings and infantry in the centre. Melee cavalry have an advantage over musket heavy infantry. Artillery benefit from flanking fire if there are gaps in the enemy line, which was why I put them in reserve.
First round. This edition of the rules adopts the method of each side choosing one sector to fight for activation, (my least favourite) although the other two methods can be used. The very first thing which happens is each side fires an artillery bombardment on one enemy sector, needs a 5+ to hit and in this case both sides missed.
The Royalists then attack with their right hand cavalry, but the melee is inconclusive (despite needing 3+ and 4+ to hit respectively). In the centre the Roundhead muskets blow away the Royalist musketeers and a pike unit moves up into the gap.
Round 2. The Royalist cavalry rout their opposite numbers and the Roundheads put their artillery onto the left flank. If I can thin out the Royalist lines, I may get a +1 bonus for flanking artillery fire. No such luck however as the Roundhead musketeers miss (needing a 5+) and are routed by the Royalist pikemen (who hit on 4+ vs musket infantry, but attack second).
Once per game each side can attempt to rally one of their destroyed units. The Roundheads manage to rally their cavalry and put it back in reserve.
Round 3. The Royalist cavalry dodge the artillery barrage and ride down the Roundhead guns. Well that went well. The infantry fight in the centre is inconclusive.
Round 4. The Royalists rout the newly rallied cavalry (again) and there is no hope of recovery now. The Roundheads put their infantry in reserve up against Ruperts cavalry.
Round 5. In a flurry of musketry one of the Royalist pikes is routed and with no reserves left, the Royalist centre is now open. The cavalry battle is inconclusive.
The Royalist try and rally one of their units to plug the gap and fail.
Round 6.The Royalist cavalry once again fail to rout their opposite numbers, and the Roundhead musketeers with their open centre advantage rout the remaining Royalist infantry. Reduced to one unit, the Royalists lose.
Even though I need to get my head around the new unit types a bit more (and some of the changes to combat resolution), that was really good fun and well with 5 US dollars! When I 've got a bit more time I'll set up some more scenarios to try. Alan on The Stronghold Revisited has done a bit more with this version and has a few suggestions on the treatment of mixed pike and shot units, as at the moment the match ups don't seem quite right, so I'll probably adopt the idea of 'mixed' units. Alan's ideas here: https://hordesofthethings.blogspot.com/2025/04/dominion-of-pike-shot-ecw.html
I need to play around with the some scenarios and the rules a bit more before making any big changes though. I'm quite drawn to using ng some variant of Populous, Rich and Rebellious to do a TYW or ECW mini campaign and using DotS as the battle engine.
My main focus has been on Dominion of the Spear as I'm working on a mini campaign participation game covering Alexander the Great using DotS as the engine, so expect a flurry of posts on that at some point in the next few weeks.
Glad you are enjoying my rules! Martin, you write “No such luck however as the Roundhead musketeers miss and are routed by the Royalist pikemen (who get a melee bonus vs musket infantry, but attack second).” Where did you get this melee bonus from? Missile Infantry versus Melee Infantry is deliberately set up to be an equal fight in these rules, with neither better than the other. The Missile unit fires first needing a 5+, then the Melee unit (if it survived) attacks needing a 4+.
ReplyDeleteSteve
Just that the Pikes hit on a 4 and not a 5, so I guess it isn't a bonus per se, but it is an advantage. As I said in the text, I've mainly been focussed on DotS recently so I need to come back to these later on - I'm mainly keeping an eye on what Alan is doing. I'll update the description to make it clearer, but my focus in this period is very much 1600 onwards, rather all the late medieval stuff, so it probably has some more period specific mods and matchups.
DeleteSorry, Martin not an advantage. Missile Infantry wins 1/3, Melee Infantry wins 1/3 (2/3 x 1/2), and 1/3 chance no result. The 4+ is balanced by attacking second. No advantage to anyone. Now, when it comes to fighting cavalry, that is where there is a difference!
ReplyDeleteSteve
That is an interesting way of looking at it. Mmmmm, very cunning.
DeleteStaying with the ECW:
ReplyDeleteIf we take the case of Royalist cavalry (elite) against Parliamentarian Musketeers (with pikemen) we have the Musketeers winning 3/9, the Cavaliers winning 5/9 (⅔ x ⅚) and no result 1/9 (⅔ x ⅙).
However, if we take the elite New Model Army Musketeers (with pikemen) then the odds dramatically change to the elite Musketeers winning 6/12, the elite Cavaliers 5/12 (½ x ⅚), and no result 1/12 (½ x ⅙).
Parliamentarian cavalry (non elite) against Royalist Pikemen (with musketeers) gives the Cavalry winning ⅙ (½ x ⅓), the Pikemen winning 2/6 (½ x ⅔), mutual destruction 2/6 (½ x ⅔), and no result ⅙ (½ x ⅓).
So in early ECW Royalist cavalry are better against Parliamentarian infantry than Parliamentarian cavalry against Royalist infantry, This seems reasonable to me.
Martin, which matchups in particular seem off to you?
Steve
I need to play around with the permutations more, but it in my head I have Royalist cavalry better than Parliamentarian (early), Infantry with any number of pikes better than cavalry, pure shot units (dragoons, commanded shot) pretty useless against anyone, infantry with more muskets (and some pikes) better than infantry with fewer or none. All qualified by quality, cover etc.
DeleteSome of this is there already, some covered by Alan's suggestions re mixed units, and some I may be wildly over complicating things. The 'revolution in military affairs' was a bewilderingly complex period of rapid change which upended the relationships between the various arms. I originally wrote this two months ago, and I've mainly been doing DotS and other stuff since, so it is something I will come back to.
Martin,
DeleteI am not sure that I agree with all the things that you say are in your head (!). I see quite a difference between early ECW and later ECW so for example in early ECW I am not sure infantry with pikes were much better than cavalry - not until they learnt what to do and got some confidence they could stand against cavalry. Same for muskets against pikes. Takes some expertise and confidence not to fumble your shot when being charged! Let alone in the rain and fog. I will be very interested in your further thoughts in due course. I love the sound of your Alexander the Great campaign.
Steve
I'll carve out some time to play a few more games and see how I get on. I was delighted to see so many TYW scenarios in the supplement, so I'll try some of those.
DeleteIs "Marston Less" the old Staines Wargamers game?
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the one. I did some light adaptations for the Thirty Years War for it (to accommodate Tercios). I just really liked the way the grid and command system worked, the combat system was a bit quirky but OK.
DeleteQuirky but OK describes the author as well :)
DeleteMartin -
ReplyDeleteInteresting article (and I read Alan's too). Not sure I'm persuaded, though. Not yet anyhow!
The shoot first/melee second mechanics seems similar to the way I handle the deep harquebusier columns vs Swedish horse (inter alia) in my version of the Portable Pike & Shot.
The odds between the combatant units are the same, but the fact remains that the melee guys have to survive the shooting before they get their licks in. That goes to tension and suspense - which, of course, adds drama to the narrative.
Cheers,
Ion
We all like a bit of tension! DoPS are such a simple set that I can see they wouldn't be for everyone, but they have just really grabbed my attention. I guess they have some similarities to the 1 hit version of the Portable Wargame, but the unit relationships have been better thought through.
DeleteThe rules appear to only allow mutual destruction to melee vs melee and missile vs missile unit match ups. i was thinking of missile vs melee to include a possible mutual destruction outcome by subtracting a 1 from the melee unit's to-hit number if the missile unit scores it's to-hit number. Just a thought...
ReplyDeleteIgnore my previous post, after doing the math, this makes missile units less effective against melee units while adding unnecessary complications.
DeleteInteresting idea! As it stands between two basic units one Missile and one Melee with no other modifiers the Missile unit wins ⅓, the Melee unit wins ⅓, and no result yet ⅓. So an equal fight.
ReplyDeleteTaking your suggestion of -1 to the Melee unit’s roll if hit, gives the Missile unit wins 2/9 (⅓ x ⅔), the Melee unit wins 3/9 (⅔ x ½), mutual destruction 1/9 (⅓ x ⅓), and no result 3/9 (⅔ x ½). So the Melee unit has an advantage which frankly I do not want.
Not sure what to do to make the odds equal with your suggestion. Worth tinkering with though!
Steve
Looks like we posted at the same time!
ReplyDeleteMaybe a weaker missile unit like mounted dragoons could cause the -1 on a melee unit? again this might be overly complicating things.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very easy to over complicate things unintentionally. When I was working on the (as yet unfinished) galley warfare variant, my head started to explode with the various permutations. The simplest rules are the hardest to write.
DeleteWhen I was writing these rules and looking at Royalist cavalry v Parliamentarian cavalry, I initially had it as Melee Mounted v Missile Mounted but really wanted "mutual destruction". I tried many different methods but I was not happy with any of them. Finally, anyway I realised that the Parliamentarian cavalry were probably most accurately described as Melee Mounted instead of Missile Mounted. I see it as whether or not the Missile unit stops the Melee unit before they make contact or not hence no mutual destruction fits better than in the other cases.
ReplyDeleteSteve
Now I need to get ECW miniatures. I was thinking of 1/32 scale. The maufacturer A Call to Arms has several sets, unfortunately some have been discontinued. In the past I have bought their ACW, Rev war and Napoleonics. Nice detail.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of 54mm plastics around, my pal Tim is the real afficianado. I used to have big 54mm FPW army, mainly CtA but also Italieri (?). HaT do a lot of 54mm stuff as well and Emhar certainly used to.
Delete