I got some nice Christmas loot from very fine people who were nice enough to gift me.  I used part of it to order some books, and one of them is the Spanish Armada book by Peter Dennis.  This is a period I am interested in, but will probably never build models for, so using paper ships works fine for me. The book also has a nice bit of introductory history, some paper modeling tips, and a set of wargaming rules.

This is a continuation of the conversation started in Part I.

I would like to talk about the turn sequence for Baroque, which is one of the things that makes the game attractive for me.  I was never much of an Impetus player, (I played the free Starter version a few times, using typical Roman/Barbarian army pairs, but not too much).  So, the Baroque structure is one that I am exploring with a fresh perspective.

A few things have to be defined before getting into the turn structure.

First, the army will have a Command Structure.  This is defined by the army list, or a series of options are given.  An army can have Good, Average or Poor.  These cost an increasing number of points, and there is a range given for Leader figures, where they can use their leadership bonus to keep troops under control.  For instance, an Average Command Structure costs the army a total of 12 points, and it means that leaders in that army have a leadership range of 6BU (Baroque Units, or in the case of 15mm armies, 6x 60mm baroque units).  Other Command Structure levels, with cost and range, is found in the rulebook.

The turn sequence works like this

1. Decide the Initiative
2. The active player (one by one) activates all the units in the Command he has activated.  The inactive player responds with reactions and/or evasions.
3. Initiative is re-decided, and repeat until all of the Commands on the table have been activated.

Deciding the initiative works like this - Each player selects one of their commands (each army is divided up into a number of 'commands' that each contain several units).  Both players roll 2d6 for their selected command, and apply dice modifiers based on the leadership bonus of the Leader of their command.  High roller wins the initiative.  If there is a tie, then the highest rated Command Structure will break the time.  Otherwise, re-roll to see who has initiative.

 Once a command has been identified as having initiative. the player controlling that command now activates each of his units, one at a time, and then plays out all that the unit is doing that turn.

The actions that a unit can do include these:

• Rally
• Withdraw (from the battlefield)
• Move
• Disengage (from a melee)
• Shoot
• Charge
• Fight a Melee

A move action can be repeated multiple times, but each time after the first, once the move is completed, the unit must pass a discipline test, or the unit is Disordered.  If the unit is trying to contact the enemy, the last move action is considered a Charge, and certain rules affect it (the rolling of an additional charge bonus distance; the possible reactions of the target of the charge).

The rulebook describes how to handle these actions, but many of them will allow for the opposing player to engage in a Reaction.  In this way, the turn is integrated, and both players are involved throughout.

The reactions allowed are these:

Action	Reaction
Withdraw	Opp Fire or Opp Charge
Move	Opp Fire or Opp Charge
Charge	Opp Fire, Def Fire, or Countercharge
Shoot	Opp Fire or Opp Charge

The reaction can only be against the unit that enabled the reaction.  So that if I move my Pike & Musket unit, and it comes close enough to an enemy unit that it can Opportunity Fire, it can only do so vs. the unit (my Pike & Musket unit) that triggered it.

In addition to the Reactions listed, many units may also Evade.

If more than one unit can React to an acting unit, only one may be selected to React.

If a reacting unit decides to Opportunity Charge, it may hit a different target unit, if such is in the way of the movement of the Opportunity Charging unit.

So, the turn is quite interesting, as the player who has initiative has to decide if his actions are worth doing, if they may trigger some reaction by the enemy.

Movement
All movement and movement bonus amounts are given in multiples of the BU (Baroque Unit).  USUALLY but not always, foot are 1BU and mounted are 2BU, but there are exceptions.  For instance, on the 30YW German Catholic army included in the rulebook, there are infantry musket units called Schutzen.  They have a move of 2BU.

Units may be classed as either Fast or Slow (but not all units are - most are average).  A Fast Unit has a benefit to the discipline test after second or subsequent movement orders (meaning it is easier for Fast units to do more than one move order).  A Slow Unit is the opposite - there is a penalty to the discipline test after performing additional move orders.

The movement rules cover interpenetration, maneuver and wheeling, obstacles and terrain, and how to handle the charge bonus (which is given in BUs of course).

Shooting
Shooting is handled by rolling a number of dice equal to the shooting unit's VBU (Basic Unit Value, recall that the acronym VBU is from the Italian, not English version of the rules).  That number gives a basic number of dice for shooting, which is modified by a Range chart.  The range bands are Point Blank (1BU), Short (2BU), Long (4BU), and Extreme (8BU).  Most hand weapons (bow, musket, pistol, etc) have a maximum range of either short or long.  The firing table in the book gives you a number of extra dice that you gain, or lose, at different range bands, based on your weapon type.

The dice are rolled, and modified by situations (first volley, shooting while moving, shot modifier for mixed infantry units, etc).  Each 6 causes a DAMAGE (a hit), and every pair of 5s causes a hit.  Count up all the hits (total Damage), and then the target unit makes a Cohesion test, to see if the Damage tranlates into Losses.

Damage is not permanent, but is only a modifier to the Cohesion Test.  For every point that a unit misses it's Critical Number (which is the VBU of the unit, minus the Damage it took), it takes a reduction to it's VBU.  So if the Critical Number is (as an example) 2, and the Cohesion Dice Test comes up a 4, the unit would take a permanent Loss of -2 to it's VBU. If a unit has it's VBU reduced to 0, it routs immediately and is removed from the table.

If a unit passes the Cohesion test, it takes no Losses, but does suffer Disorder.  A disordered unit that AGAIN is disordered, will instead take a VBU loss.

The book gives rules for commanders being hit, arc of fire, reduced effect firing (like into terrain, or blocked) and discusses particulars for artillery, pistols, and defensive & opportunity fire.

Melee
Fighting the melee is similar to shooting.  Once two units are engaged and fighting (there are rules determining charge effects, flank charges, melee modifiers for certain unit types and situations, etc.), each will roll it's allowed number of dice (VBU plus or minus modifiers). A gain, 6s and 5s are the dice that cause damage.

Once again, there is a roll to see if the damage translates into permanent Losses (i.e. a Cohesion test).

Following the melee, and determining results, there are rules determining retreats and pursuits, and how they are evaluated.

Rules are given for commander casualties, and also for mixed (i.e. multi unit) melees.

Skirmishers that are hit in the open by formed units do not fight, but are immediately dispersed (remove from the table).  Again, there are rules covering melee and Artillery, and Baggage trains.

The rest of the rulebook covers special rules, setting up battles, and a number of army lists.  These will be covered in Part III.

The term Renaissance as a period is one which has been responsible for a lot of ink - in both history circles, as well as by wargamers.  Going with the various articles published here at Gaming with Chuck over the years, I am going to (vaguely) take it to represent warfare (typically, but not exclusively) dealing with Western Europe (and the border regions of Western Europe - say with the growing powers in the south and the east).  As far as time periods go, I am going to limit myself with the 16th and 17th centuries (so, roughly, from 1500-1700AD).

There is a lot going on in other parts of the world, and the study of conflicts there is equally worthy of wargaming (in fact, I have even published a set of rules for the Samurai battles in Japan (From the Sky we Came) which covered the Sengoku period, up until the battle of Sekigahara in 1600 AD.  But, that is a different sort of warfare from what I am discussing here.

Here, I am focusing on warfare in Western Europe.  These are the conflicts of the Italian Wars, the wars of religion that grew out of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.  The possible conflict between England and Spain.  The battles of the Spanish Netherlands.  The many conflicts making up both the Thirty Years War and the English Civil Wars (both in the 17th century), and so on.  These battles and wars are marked by several broad features - the presence of gunpowder, the reliance of infantry (in many cases) on pike, the presence of armor (especially, but not only, for mounted units) and the existence of interesting mixed-arms formations (starting with the tercio formations coming out of the Italian Wars, and then moving to the more streamlined pike and musket formations of the 17th century, which eventually gave way to pure musket formations by the end of this period).

I've reviewed, and reported various battles, using several sets of rules for this period.  I have read many, many more.  Lately I have looked into Baroque, from the Italian wargaming company of Dadi & Piombo.

These are an evolution of the Impetus rules for ancient and medieval warfare, published earlier by Dadi & Piombo.  As the cover states, these cover 1550 to 1700.  The earlier Impetus rules overlapped with this period, and the very nice wargame lists they produce on the website have armies up to and including 16th century (including some of the Central American armies - another focus of warfare in this period, but not what I am discussing here).

My recent (the past 2-3 years) renaissance wargaming was with a modified version of the Neil Thomas Renaissance rules, from his "Wargaming: An Introduction" (several convention games, and an Italian Wars scenario).  While they produce a small, and satisfying game, they are a bit limited in troop types, and also in allowable player actions.  While they are excellent for introductory games, and for small convention games (to introduce a period), they don't have the complexity or depth to keep more experienced wargames engaged for long.  On the other hand, these days, I am not a big fan of very complex rules.  While I admire the Field of Glory rules, and their Renaissance version, they are not the rules for me.  Also, while I am a huge fan of the George Gush rules (mentioned here on Gaming with Chuck with some of my other Renaissance rules reviews), they don't play well with a modern audience.  However, I think that Baroque might fill the sweet spot (at least until we try By Fire and Sword).

Unit Types
As mentioned, Baroque covers 1550-1700.  The unit types it features are perfect for representing battlefields in that period.  There are, roughly, two different types of units, plus artillery.

The first type are Mounted Troops, and include several classes of unit -

• Gallopers - Shock cavalry trained to charge at a gallop, may use a pistol, but more likely to rely on the sword or lance.  
• Trotters - Cavalry that charge at a trot.  These almost always will be pistol armed, and will discharge those during the slower charge, to follow up with contact by sword.
• Reiters - These are pistol armed (and perhaps heavily armored) cavalry, the prefer to not close to contact - but instead will keep their distance, and employ pistol tactics, like the Caracole maneuver.
• Sipahis - Eastern cavalry, usually armed with missile weapons.  Sometimes present in large units (treated as a 'Massed Unit').
• Light Cavalry - These are fast, skirmish cavalry, often armed with missile weapons.  
• Horse & Musket - In the later part of this period, some trotter units will have integrated foot musketeers, for greater strength on engaging the enemy in fire combat.  This is a mixed unit with mounted and foot soldiers in the same unit.

The second type are Foot Troops, which also include several classes of unit -

• Pike & Musket - This is the mixed unit of pikemen and musketeers made popular with the advent of more, and more reliable, hand weapons that use gunpowder.  Because a portion of the unit is armed with pikes, this reduces firepower, but also provides a strong deterrent to cavalry, and the ability to hit other infantry in contact. 
• Early Tercio - This is very, very deep unit, coming out of the 16th century, with some integrated shot troops.  Because of its extreme depth, and training in deployment, it is almost impossible to gain a flank advantage against this unit, but it is extremely vulnerable to artillery.
• Later Tercio - Not as deep as the earlier tercio, and sometimes employing a higher ratio of shot troops, the Later Tercio is almost as flexible as the Pike & Musket unit, but still a bit more unwieldy.  It is not as well protected on the flanks and rear as the Early Tercio, but it has enough shot troops posted there that it can give fire out of those aspects of the formation.
• Pikemen - Deep formations of only pikemen, without integrated shot troops.  These are popular in the earlier part of the period by those nations fielding pikemen, but not employing the Tercio.
• Irregular Infantry - These are (sometimes) fierce hand to hand fighters.  Sometimes they are equipped with missile weapons.  Sometimes they appear in large units (treated as a 'Massed Unit').  But they are not the disciplined mixed units listed above.
• Shooters - As with Pikemen units, these are from the earlier part of the period before the mixed units took over - these are units of purely missile armed soldiers.
• Skirmishers - Light troops, sometimes armed with good quality firearms, designed to skirmish with the enemy.
• Dragoons - These are mounted infantry, armed with missile weapons.  They combine the faster maneuverability of mounted troops, with the ability of infantry to provide good missile fire.

Other classes of tabletop units -

• Artillery is available.  In this  period, as the science of artillery is being developed, there is a bewildering constellation of different types of guns, calibers, firing mechanisms, etc.  These are all simplified in the rules to light, medium or heavy batteries.  And further, they are classed as either Cannons (firing a relative flat trajectory), and Howitzers (firing a high arcing shot).
• Commanders - The army will be divided up into a handful (usually 3 or 4) of commands (or brigades).  Each of these has a commander.  One of these commanders will be the General (or commander in chief).  A commander can be attached (if he wishes) to any non-artillery unit in his command.  the commander-in-chief can be attached (if he wishes) to any non-artillery unit in the entire army.
• Baggage - All armies have immobile baggage.  The baggage may be Fortified or Not.

Measurements in the Game
Battlefield measurements in the game are measured (and listed on the charts) in terms of BU, or  'Baroque Units' - so named to distinguish them from the basic unit of measure from Impetus, which was the Unit, or U.  In Baroque, the BU is equal to half the frontage of a standard unit (which is always 12cm).  So, a BU is 6cm.  Speaking of unit frontage...

Unit basing
For 15mm, the standard unit frontage is 12cm.  Which is perfect for me, as my units are based on standard 4cm wide bases.  So three bases wide, makes a unit.  For Pike & Musket units that is perfect - a stand of pikes in the middle, flanked by two stands of muskets - looks great.

Using larger one piece bases would be nice, but I don't want to rebase my renaissance wargaming armies.

The depth of the units varies, with the deepest being the Early Tercio - it is 12cm deep.  Since I mount my pikes in two ranks on a 3cm deep (or sometimes 4cm deep) stand, it is easy for me to model an Early Tercio - 3 stands wide, and 3 or 4 stands deep(!) - but it is the biggest unit in the game (and was quite large in history too).  A more standard Pike and Musket unit is listed as 4-6cm deep - which means, for me, one or two stands deep for Pikemen in the middle, and two stands deep of Musketeers on the flanks.  Easy, and it looks good.  Cavalry is easier - one rank deep.  Massed Mounted units are two ranks deep.

I'll follow this article up in Part II with a discussion of the turn sequence, and basic game structure.

This is part three of my 15mm cataloging effort. This time, my Renaissance armies, to cover the late 15th through the mid 17th centuries.

Size: Two large armies. All elements including monks, foreigners, etc.

Condition: All painted. Rebasing is desired, but could be played.

Notes: Many different factions and clans are represented, could easily become a campaign.

Joseon Korean

Size: Large army, intended as a foe for the Japanese.

Condition: Painted, needs organization and basing.

Notes: I would like to build some turtle ships...

Size: Large army. Collection may also include separate Mongol horde, but needs to be sorted.

Condition: Unsorted, unpainted. 

Notes: if I ever pursue this project, I may get the Mings professionally painted.

This is another review in the Once and Future Rules series, of wargame rules that are out of print, but that got a lot of play at one time (at least, in the clubs and groups I played in since the early 1980s).

This review is of Hackbutt & Pike, the Tac-50 series rules for Renaissance wargaming.  These were printed in 1977, but copies are still available through Cotton Jim Flags (write and ask - I think they are $5, which is a great price for a rulebook these days, and they still read well).

The period of the renaissance has remained (through most of my adult life) one of my favorite periods of history for both study, and for wargaming.  As you can tell, if you have been following this series of reviews from the beginning, I have dabbled with or played a number of different rulesets for the period.

• The Universal Soldier
• Forlorn Hope 
• Dominance 
• Cavaliers and Roundheads 
• Tercio 

And I am at least planning to do the Protz ECW rules, and the Gush Renaissance rules in the series.

Chesapeake Military Society - a Reminiscence
Along side all those other Renaissance rules, why am I reviewing Hackbutt & Pike?  Simply for two reasons.  First, they are rules that I played in the 80s and 90s (which fits the criteria of this series of articles).  Second, they are part of a series of rule sets that helped to define my earliest exposure to a wargaming club.

In the early 1980s, while in High School, and shortly after I began driving, I discovered (through an advertisement at a local bookstore in a mall - remember mall book stores?) that there was a local wargaming club that met in Hampton, Virginia at the local National Guard Armory.  That club was the Chesapeake Military Society (CMS).  Prior to my exposure to the club they previously met at one of the old batteries at Fort Monroe.  By the time I encountered them, they were meeting once a month at the Armory.  Now, the National Guard Armory, in Hampton, consisted of a large muster area for the Guard meetings, plus a large building that included a basketball sized gymnasium. This is where the gaming club met.  As a testament to the gross popularity of tabletop gaming at the time, they would fill up the place.  There would be all sorts of miniatures games going on, and when I first went, there were also some role playing games.  There was a terrific WW2 naval battle (using Seapower III I think), with 1:1200 ships, on the floor of the gymnasium (the old school - with long surveyor's tapes run out to lengths of 20+ feet between ships for salvos, etc).  And there was a large Napoleonic game, in lovely 25mm, being played on a large table.

This Napoleonics game being played (and refereed) by the core members of the club, although there were many other games going on.  The rules for the game were Valeur et Discipline, written by the luminary behind the club - Mr. Ben King.  Ben had several other rules that the club used, and in this particular series (which is called Tac-50 - as they are all based on a 1:50 scale) there are four sets proper - Mitre, Mustache & Musket for Seven Years War (and mid 18th century), Valeur et Discipline for Napoleonics, Kepi & Pickelhaub for mid 19th century, and Hackbutt & Pike for Renaissance.  Another set, for Vauban era siege warfare and early 18th century field battles exists called Fusil & Fortress, but it is on another scale of detail from the rest of the series, and covers so much more than the rest.  I plan to review several (or perhaps all) of these in this series.

Shortly after this time, the peninsula location of Campaign Headquarters (the original was in Norfolk, Virginia) would open, and CMS would change to have their monthly meetings at the store.  It was at these meetings that I became familiar with the Tac-50 rules.  Usually, but not always, refereed by Ben, the rules are very clear, and are also quite "bloody" - leading to a high casualty rate, for quick play games.
Hackbutt & Pike is not the set of Tac-50 rules that I played the most often (that is probably Valeur et Discipline), but it is the set that I refereed several times, and the set I played most often outside of the CMS club meeting settings.  And it is one of my favorite periods, as mentioned earlier.  The ruleset does not lay down a specific time period (probably for the best), but could easily stretch back to the 14th century (as the introduction to the history section begins there), which includes the later Medieval period, and could run up to the middle of the 17th century - the Monmouth Rebellion or War of the Grand Alliance might be possible, but would be a stretch.

Battle of Rocroi, by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau

Introduction
The rules come in a nice 8.5x11 booklet, running to 44 pages in length.  They are divided up into eight sections:

1. Game Structure
2. Terrain & Weather
3. History, Tactics & Organization
4. Movement
5. Melee
6. Firepower
7. Casualties
8. Control, Reaction & Morale

They follow up with a nice bibliography.  This ruleset's bibliography first introduced me to Charles Oman's Art of War in the Sixteenth Century, so for that alone I am forever indebted.

The Game Structure is basically an overview of scale (1 model soldier represents 50 men), and how to base figures for the game.  Time scale is given, also - turns are 25-30 minutes, and ground is 1" to 25 yards.  This is followed by some basic game concepts - you should write general orders for your army, and also fire priority for all your missile troops.  There should be a command figure representing your general on the tabletop, and each turn, both armies should write tactical orders detailing things like charges, changes in move, etc.  If a player wishes to change the overall battle orders for a unit, they must be carried from the general to the unit by a courier figure (the general has two such figures at the start of the game), which may be captured or killed in the process.

Swiss Mercenaries crossing the Alps, by Luzerner Schilling

One word right up front.  I have remarked in this series of reviews over and over again how I don't care for simultaneous move rules (which Tac-50 sets all are), and how I dislike writing orders.  However . . . every rule has it's exception.  Some of the Tac-50 games I played were extremely enjoyable, and with a knowledgeable and active referee it can work.  Arguments can still arise, but if the referee is respected by all the players, it works out well.  Forward.

The next section covers terrain and weather this has several sections in it.

• Roads - how to depict them, and what they mean for movement
• Ground condition - roll 3d6; 3-7 bad ground; 8-18 good ground.  Optional of course.
• Weather - what it is, and how it changes.
• Forests - dense and light
• Hills - 10 yard contours, and how they affect movement and visibility
• Obstacles, Barriers, and Field Works - how to pass them, how to lay them, and war wagons (Hussites?)
• Rivers and Streams - how to depict them, how to ford them
• Bridges and Boats
• Houses

This is followed up by a nice, but sadly too concise, section (running about 6 pages) on the history, tactics, and composition of some major armies of the Renaissance period. Following this, which includes some nice diagrams showing some of the major battalia formations of the period (such as the Spanish Tercio, or the Swiss Keil), we then move on to section 4, which begins the meat of the rules.

Turn Order and Movement
Section 4 is called Movement, and begins with a short overview of the turn structure.  The turn is intended to be simultaneously executed, with both sides moving, and then fighting and shooting all taking place simultaneously.  This works well if you have an organized and knowledgeable referee guiding things.

The turn sequence, as presented here, is this:

1. (Implied) - Write Orders
2. Skirmishers may fire weapons
3. Movement of Troops
4. Fire of weapons by Formed Troops (and artillery)
5. Hand to Hand Combat 

As mentioned, skirmishers may fire before all moves.  Or, they may do a split move and fire.  If, while doing this, they come into range of enemy troops, they may still be fired on by those troops in the proper turn sequence.

Other actions other than regular moves are covered, as a function of how many they can perform in a turn (or how many turns they will take).  This includes such things as infantry moving backwards, crossing obstacles, entering a building, passage of lines, or forming a wagon lager.


The movement chart gives moves for formed units and skirmishers.  For cavalry it also lists Caracole movement (moving up, discharging pistols, and return).

Artillery and Wagons are given movement rates for draught animals (being pulled along), or being manhandled.


Hand-to-Hand Fighting

The next section of the rules covers hand-to-hand fighting, or melee combat.  Although this period, in history, and as described in the history section of the rulebook, is a period when disciplined soldiery began to replace the heavy knight on the battlefield.  However, the heavy knight is still a superior weapon, even if it cannot win battles on its own any longer.  And, much of the replacement of the knight is in the form of pikemen and other polearm supplied troops (although this would give way, and evolve into, the bayonet).

While there is currently a debate about the use of the pike (see my earlier article Push of Pike), in wargaming the possibility exists that they may be exercised effectively - so rules have to exist.  And with these two arms of the renaissance battlefield (the horse, and the pike) being focused on hand-to-hand fighting, it is fitting that this is a major focus of the rules.

A side note - although above I make that case that hand-to-hand fighting is a major feature of renaissance warfare, and thus the Hackbutt & Pike rules, it is true that close combat is a major feature (a battle winning feature) of all the Tac-50 rules.  This is appropriate, because it is what wargamers seek to engage in.  And whether the encounter reflects the actual casualties that occur from bayonets and pikes piercing the enemy soldiery, or if those casualties reflect a fleeing soldiery that lost their nerve in the face of such weapons, it matters little - it is a part of combat in these periods, and something wargamers regularly rely on to win battles.

In these rules, the key to Hand-to-Hand fighting is the point value of the soldiers involved.  Light Infantry figures are worth 1 point each, up to Heavy Cavalry (Knights) are worth 4 points each.  The basic procedure is to total up the number of points you have fighting, more on how that is calculated is described below, then find that row on the casualty table, roll some dice, and you get a number of points inflicted (by consulting the proper column on the table).  Divide this number of points by the point value of the target unit, and you get the number of figures killed.

The Casualty Table

How many figures will fight?  This is found by consulting a table called the Melee Matrix.  There, you will cross reference two different letters - each reflecting the weapon system of one of the two units involved (attacker on the left, defender across the top), and the result will give which column to roll on, on the casualty table, and will also tell you how many ranks of figures get to fight.  From there, take a look at the point of contact - all figures on the front rank in contact, and all those to their flanks within 2" (about 1 multi figure stand) on either side of the contact, will get to fight.  Plus a similar number of additional ranks, if additional ranks get to fight.

Melee Matrix, and Point Values of Figures

Difference of Dice is printed boldly across the top of the Casualty Table.  This is how the exact number of points is determined.  The players will roll 2d6, and determine the difference between them.  So if a play rolls a 6 and a 3, the difference is 3.  Doesn't matter which dice is first or second, it is only the difference that matters.  Doubles must be re-rolled.  In this way, a weighted series of results is determined (take a look at a simple 6x6 matrix, with the odds of each difference counted up to see what I am talking about), and a curve is introduced into the casualty table, while still preserving only 5 columns of numbers.

Which column on the Casualty Table to use?

The basic system is similar to a few other rule sets (point values goes back to Charles Grant, I believe), but of those reviewed in this blog, it is very similar to Forlorn Hope, the biggest difference being that the results in Hackbutt & Pike are in points, rather than in whole figures.

As mentioned, one of the lacking elements of the (otherwise excellent) quick reference sheet provided with the game (the book comes with two copies), is the table of letters defining a unit's fighting style.  Here is the table (note that there are two entries for 'E'):

A - Dry Pikes

B - Supported Pikes (with swordsmen, dopplesoldners, polearms, etc)

C - Short Hafted Pole Arms (halberd, glaives, etc)

D - Targeteers - Sword and Targe (or Buckler) armed

E - Disciplined Soldiers with Misc Weapons (sword, axe, spear, etc)

E - All troops that are in Open Order (this is usually missile armed troops)

F - Infantry in Skirmish Formation

G - Dismounted Warriors - trained, but undisciplined, such as foot knights or most Turkish infantry

H - Cavalry in Close Order

I - Cavalry in Skirmish Order (horse archers, etc)

Example: A unit of 18 'dry' Medium Infantry Pikemen (3 stands across, in two ranks, 1.5 points each) are facing a unit of 24 Sword & Buckler Light Infantry men (4 stands across, in two ranks, 1 point each).  Consulting the weapon system table in the book (frustatingly, this is the one table that is not on the quick reference sheet, but the letter of each unit could be recorded on an order of battle sheet), we find that 'dry' Pikemen (so called because they are not supported by zweihanders, polearms, or other supporting infantry) are the letter 'A'.  Also consulting, we find out that the Sword & Buckler men are the letter 'D'.   Comparing this, we find that an A unit vs a D unit (on the Melee Matrix) rolls on Column I, and uses 1 rank of troops.  Similarly, the D unit vs the A unit rolls on Column III, and uses 1 rank of troops.  Both units will use their whole front rank (9 figures for the Pikemen, and 12 figures for the Swordsmen).  Checking for the pikes first, we find 9 figures times 1.5 points is 13.5, or rounded up, 14 points on the casualty table.  The dice are rolled, a 4 and a 2, or difference of 2 in column I.  This means '2' points have been inflicted, which means 2 whole Swordsmen have been killed.  Returning the favor, 12 swordsmen, at 1 point each, is the 12 roll on the table.  Consulting column III, with a dice difference of 3 (a 4 and 1 were rolled), we see that 9 points were inflicted, which means (at 1.5 points each) 6 pikemen were killed.

Not mentioned in the above example, which serves to illustrate the use of the melee matrix and the casualty table, but there is a list of possible dice modifiers.  Compared to many rulesets this list is blessedly short, as can be seen here.

 Now for the exciting part.  Combat is fought in (potentially) up to 6 rounds.  First, assuming that both units pass morale tests, they enter combat, and fight three rounds.  Then some mid-combat tests are further performed, and if both pass, they fight another three rounds.  The second three rounds assume that there is now a general melee and discipline is flown out the window, so all the niceties of the melee matrix is ignored, and all combat is only in column I.  What can stop this slaughter?  Well, if a unit has taken results that meet their Maximum Allowed Loss (M.A.L.), then it can trigger an end to the hostilities, or if the morale tests dictate so (see morale below).  Usually, three rounds are fought, and that is decisive.  Those three rounds are fought in rapid succession, not over three turns, by the way.  So when a unit hits another, there are (possibly) three or six casualty rolls for each side.  It is bloody, but is is also dramatic, as you see how one unit starts to fail and eventually is swamped.  Stubborn units get to go all in for six rounds of fighting - massive carnage!


The close combat section ends with rules on how to fight encounters between leaders (say, with a personal duel).  Also, once a combat is over and one side or the other retires, it is important to determine if either side captured a standard.  This can have an impact on morale tests, and provides for great bragging rights. It is based on a reaction test (see below).



Ranged Combat

The whole series of Tac-50 rules, if taken chronologically (and including the 18th century set Fusil & Fortress), is a series of wargaming rules charting the evolution of firepower from the late medieval period (the eponymous hackbutt of the set being reviewed here), up through the height of the age of rifles (the end of the 19th century, as portrayed in Kepi & Pickelhaub).

This period we see not only the muscle powered weapons of antiquity and the medieval period (spears, slings, bows, etc.) but also the introduction of gunpowder weapons.  This includes the hackbutt (or arquebus), the musket, the pistol and of course gunpowder based artillery.


A weapons table details the range of the firepower based weapons, and also which column to use on the casualty table.  It also includes such useful information as to what the effect is if the target is wearing no armor (the default case is that the target figures are wearing some armor), and also what happens if they are fully (plate) armored.  There is also a detail about which factor row to consult when firing artillery.


Not every weapon can fire every turn, and the loading table details how much of a turn's worth of movement must be sacrificed to reload the weapon.  In practice, we found that marking a unit with gunpowder blasts (i.e. - cotton balls) is effective to show they are unloaded.


As was clear from the die modifier table, most of the modifiers in the game for combat have an affect on missile fire.

Unlike close combat, there is only one round of missile fire per turn.

Casualties
This section of the rules details (as described above) how to use the casualty table, and how to get a dice difference. It also points out that the vagaries of the point system mean that sometimes a unit can never inflict enough points to kill a single enemy figure.  In those cases, it suggests that the total number of attacking factors/figures be multiplied by 2 or even 3 to get a reasonable result - but this must be done equally for both sides in a melee or firefight.

Since the rules (especially the close combat rules) are so very bloody, there is also a section here that allows you to detail, after a combat, exactly how many of those "casualty" figures are actually casualties, and how many return to your ranks, ready to march again immediately.  In this way, even though tabletop battles are quite bloody, forces remain relatively intact for the purpose of playing campaigns.

Reactions and Morale
Units are rated, according to their training and dedication, as one of five different classes.
Class I - Untrained, Undisciplined -  peasants, feudal levy, untrained burghers
Class II - Semi-Trained - town militia
Class III - Trained - fighting for a cause, such as Royal body guards, noble's retinue
Class IV - Trained - mercenaries or national troops
Class V - Arrogant - Swiss, Knights, Fanatics

Using this class, a unit will have to occasionally make a reaction test (reasons are listed below), and will result in one of four reaction results - 0, A, B, or C.
0 - Leadership has lost control, Unit takes matter into their own hands, Advance at nearest enemy
A - Unit will continue to follow orders
B - Unit will retire from the battle, but in good order, and will defend itself
C - Unit has given up hope and will throw down weapons and flee


The reasons for making tests are as follows:

• When enemy first comes into view.
• Prior to melee (on contact)
• After each three rounds of melee
• After leader of army is killed or captured
• After M.A.L. (Maximum Allowed Loss) is reached
• After all unit leaders are killed (rules detail if one of three leader figures are killed in combat)

A unit rolls 2d6, and applies modifiers (such as based on MAL, or situational modifiers) and then consults a chart based on their class. This gives one of the four results (0,A,B,C).

The reaction section also details such events as asking for quarter, units that are NOT granted quarter can roll for desperation (determine bonuses to morale for fighting on); looting; the chance of capturing a standard based on morale results from melee combat; and others.

Review/Opinion
I like the Tac-50 sets of rules, but they are somewhat dated these days.  One of the things I will still decry, in spite of having numerous successful (and memorable) games with these rules, is the simultaneous nature of the turn sequence.

They are fast - the method for rolling multiple close combat rounds in a single turn will see to that.  But these are (approximately) 30 minute turns, so each combat round represents 5 minutes (more or less) of hard fighting.  That isn't exactly so, because the turn can also include movement, but it does represent a possibly large amount of fighting.  Still, the casualties generated are extreme and obscene - but they work very well.  The game is very playable, and very fast.  I have played in games with hundreds of stands of figures on each side, to a complete result within 3 hours or so of playtime.

These work great, in my opinion, for the Italian Wars, and other wars of religion.  As well as the later medieval battles (These would be great for Hundred Years War as well as Wars of the Roses games).  They are intended to cover English Civil War and Thirty Years War, and do so pretty well, but the rules for mixed battalions of pike and shot are not included.  Each body is its own "unit" for the purpose of the game.  Equally, there is not a chance (that I recall) to evade, so a shot unit cannot, for instance, run for cover under the pikes.  Most of the other Renaissance rules I have reviewed in this series of articles do such representation with either maneuver, combat, or morale rules (or a combination of all three).

Cavalry is dealt with exceptionally well here, and the simple rules for pistols, caracoling, and so forth give the different tactical systems of the time good coverage.

These may be something of a challenge for me, in a future article and perhaps some solo gaming, to come up with a You-Go-I-Go variant of the game.  Perhaps allowing for reaction moves?  Not sure, but it could work.  The rules are too good to keep that bugaboo of simultaneous turns in the way of playing them.

This is another review in the Once and Future Rules series, of wargame rules that are out of print, but that got a lot of play at one time (at least, in the clubs and groups I played in since the early 1980s).
  
               There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
                                                         - Niccolo Machiavelli 

Personal Reflection
One of the great things about my war gaming life in the 1980s (and the 1990s, to a certain extent) was that I was exposed to a lot of different gaming groups, and different gaming styles.  For a while, around the years 1984-85 I was involved with two different groups of wargamers/friends that were very much interested in the Renaissance, as a war gaming period.  One group was a very varied set of gamers who played lots of different periods.  Another group largely played the rules written by one of the members of that group.  A third group would tend to focus (for a short, but intense time) on a certain period or set of rules.  Most of them/us were also medieval and ancients players, and while there were very large 25mm armies floating around the community I played in, most of those armies were not Renaissance armies, so it was up to us to construct 15mm armies when it became the period we focused on.  But we needed rules.

Eventually, we would settle on particular subsets of periods, and particular subsets of rules.  But for a short while, we fooled around with Peter Harris' rules, Tercio.  We had access to both 4th edition (which this review mostly focuses on) and also the recently published 5th edition.  I don't know why, but it seems to me that we mostly played with copies of 4th edition laying around, although we always were checking things out in 5th edition.  I recall some arguments about the 4th edition book being more concise (which it sort of is), and also more straightforward (which it also is).

To be fair, we looked at a lot of rules, and the only ones we refused to play were the Newbury "Fast Play rules for Medieval and Renaissance Warfare (1300-1500)".  Oh boy.


Rules Intro
Tercio is a set of rules for Renaissance miniatures games (the cover mentions the period 1500-1700) written by Peter Harris, and releases (initially) in 1976.  Sadly, I do not know the history of the first three editions.  It was (in its 4th edition) written for 25mm figures (which we ignored, and used 15mm figures, but so be it), and the ground scale was 1 inch to 10 meters.  The rulebook begins with loads of information on how to classify your troops (of which, there are a lot of data points required for each unit), also points values, base sizes, and  set of guidelines for setting up random battlefields.

One of the hallmarks of many 70s rulesets (and one I have mostly moved on from, as have most other wargamers I know from the period) is writing rules.  Tercio, as a tournament rule set, had specific rules for orders, how they can be changed, and when they had to (or were allowed to) be changed.  In short, you had to write basic battlefield orders at the beginning of the game (i.e. - "pike/shot unit will advance to the crossroads, and then deploy and act defensively").  Then, once the game started, you should basically keep those orders in mind as you perform tactical moves, shooting, etc during the game.  Rules existed for sending signals, changing standing orders, etc.  During the game, however, the only turn-to-turn orders that were required by the rules were Charges, and if any pre-arranged orders (based on signals) were written at the start of the game.

In practice, our group used Charge declaration markers - chits that had Charge written on them, mixed in to a handful of other chits that had nothing written on them.  Each turn, we would place one facedown chit behind each unit, using a Charge chit for units to charge, and a blank chit everywhere else.  It was much quicker than writing, and was immediately apparent once you turned over the chits.

Turn Order
The turn order for the game (called the "Move Procedure" - a phrase that has stuck with me) was pretty typical for a simultaneous move game, and is really not all that different from the turn sequence in Dominance.  The difference, for Tercio, is in the specificity of when things happen.  And, that there are two pre-contact charge morale tests.  First, before moving chargers, any charging unit that has already taken a certain amount of casualties must test morale.  Second, after any moves, reaction moves, and firing due to charges and routs, there is a second morale test for all units that charged, and are about to contact.  Also those units being charged.  Once all this testing is done, then there is final shooting, other than vs chargers, and it all ends with melee resolution, and final (post-melee) morale tests.

A simplified description could be:

1. Chargers charge
2. Morale test for Contact
3. Shoot
4. Fight
5. Morale tests from fighting

Movement rates are given in millimeters (I like inches, in spite of being a scientist and working in the metric system all the time) and maneuvers are given in terms of how much time (quarter move, half, full, etc) it takes a unit (based on training) to perform.

Combat
Firing rules are pretty straight forward.  This is a "factors and table" system, as per Dominance, and not the last such system I played for the Renaissance period.  The system is pretty deterministic, and works by figuring out the basic factors for weapon vs. armor; a short list of modifiers; and a d6 roll, to generate a modifier of -2 to +2.  A casualty table is consulted, and deaths of men are noted (every 20 deaths results in a figure removal).  Rules for ammunition, different firing types (volley, etc), and artillery are included.


Melee rules are similar (same dice toss for factor modifier of -2 to +2), with the basic factor being based on cavalry or infantry, and weapon type - vs. armor of the opposing unit.  Once casualties are generated for both sides, it is important to determine the combat results.  This is done with a very nice, and convenient chart, that matrices the casualties inflicted by the losing side (the side which inflicted the least number of casualties vs. the number of casualties that the winning side inflicted).  Once the column specifying the correct ratio is determined, then there is a Letter result that is based on the nature of the matchup (infantry vs infantry, cavalry vs cavalry, or cavalry vs infantry).  These letters determine the basic resolution of the combat round.  An example result is:

"E" - If infantry win, cavalry will rout.  If cavalry wins, the infantry will rout and the cavalry will pursue for two moves.

 Having  a system to determine the winner of the melee, and the results, is very nice, and is quite separate from morale tests (although the chart also generates the reason for making those tests, as well).  Note that Chainmail does something similar, but is based on comparing a total based on the number of figures remaining, plus factors for most casualties inflicted, and larger remaining unit.  Those are compared (as described in the Chainmail rulebook, and commented on in the review), and then melee results are calculated.  The Tercio system has much more interesting results, because of the way it is done, but it requires consulting two different charts following each melee combat.  That is in addition to the factor look up table, the list of modifiers, and the casualty table for each side, just to generate the number of casualties inflicted.  At least with the Chainmail system, if you know the points values of your troops, the whole mechanic can be done in your head, or on the back of a note card with a pencil, in about 20 seconds.

Extras
Finally, there are rules for executing morale tests, rallying, routs, pursuits, and other aspects.  A simple weather system is also included.  That pretty much concludes the 4th edition rules.

One thing, before I write my opinion of playing Tercio.  The description of troops has a lot of data included in it.  There is a factor for training level (T1, T2, T3), there is a factor for Morale (M1, M2...) there is a tactical group (ST - Skirmish, FT- Firepower, MT - Melee), there is an Organizational identifier (Regular, Feudal, Mercenaries), finally there is formation type (Close, Open, Normal).  These factors all come into play in the different rules subsystems in the game.  This may, or may not, be better than the typical WRG Ancients system where a unit is has one factor representing training and morale (A,B,C, etc).


In addition to the above factors, Tercio also lists army type (Light, Medium, Heavy, Extra Heavy, Super Heavy), and weapons carried.  These factors are onerous enough to keep track of when you are writing up your own army, but if you use the published lists, it is important to make sure you are keeping track of the different unit types, because of subtle differences.

It still bears my name on the outside.

Which brings me to a quick note about 5th Edition.  As mentioned, we played 4th edition.  There is not a lot of difference, except that for everything in 4th edition, there is MORE in 5th edition.  More rules, more troop types (allowing more army types and troop types to be represented), more factors, more optional and subsystems.  And, 5th edition also include an army list book as part of the publication.

4th edition, which is just the rules, comes in at just over 40 pages.  5th edition is two books in one (rulebook and army list book), and the rules themselves are something like 53 pages long.  Admittedly, there is some really nice artwork (very similar, and by the same artist that did the work for the Shock of Impact rule book, published around the same time, for ancient warfare).  But there is another 50 pages of army lists, divided up by period.  This is very nice, and has some interesting features (like, each army has predefined core units, and then some extra units that can be purchased using points).  The organization of sub units and interesting organization representing some of the Renaissance infantry formations (main body of pike, with sub bodies of halberdiers, shot, etc) is done very nicely by these rules, and they cover a lot of territory in terms of the wars and armies of the period.

Two army lists - Imperial 16th Century and Milanese, same period

My thoughts - Tercio is a neat set of rules.  I think it has not aged well, but most of the subsystems are pretty good, and other than a very deterministic combat system, and a factors and table combat system, it is not bad.  However, I recall from playing it that while it was a very serious attempt at simulating warfare, we had no feel that we were playing Renaissance armies fighting each other.  There is just too much abstract detail, and it does not have any glossing over of the fact, to make if feel like the period.   It is possible that the habit of many late 70s and early 80s rulesets to try to become more "serious" by piling on more data had the same effect.

For instance, while playing you would be talking about your M1/T1 troops, instead of talking about your "Fanatic Professionals".  The former gets a little stale.  And the order writing/charge declaration system (along with simultaneous movement - which ALWAYS generates arguments) is a thing of the past.  We tried to keep it smooth and streamlined by using order chits for charge, but that was done better in Johnny Reb, and that is a different ball of wax.  The method my friend Ron and I used (maybe from the Pike and Shot society?) of using a d20 to determine the odd casualty each turn, instead of maintaining a casualty roster, was pretty good and could have been applied here.  But, it all felt stale, and sort of dry. 

The data contained in the army lists from the 5th edition book, included as a bonus, is nice, as is the terrain and weather system (which can easily be stolen for other rules/periods).  Again, with different gaming groups, my experience was different.  With one group, we would play Hackbutt and Pike (by Ben King), in another group we would play The Universal Soldier for Renaissance, and finally with another group we would play George Gush's rules.  Finally, I settled on two sub periods, the Italian Wars, for which even Might of Arms was a good solution, and ECW for which I found some specialty rules (Forlorn Hope, 1644, Cavaliers & Roundheads).

So, Tercio was interesting, but it didn't last.  I think that it would have even a smaller chance of surviving today.  I included it in this series of reviews for the nostalgia and respect I have for Harris' rules, but also to serve as a comparison to Dominance (which I liked, but didn't play nearly often enough), and George Gush's rules (which I have yet to review, but it is coming).  It is emblematic of TTG rulesets of the period, being very thorough, and very much dominated by charts, factors, and different subsystems and classification systems from other rule sets.

But at least it isn't the Newbury Fastplay Rules.

I recently received a shipment of 40mm x 30mm MDF bases, which means it is time to get caught up on some cavalry basing.

First up, 12 stands (36 figures) of armored 17th century cavalry.  These could be useful either as continental Cuirassiers in the Thirty Years War (or some time earlier).  Possible as Schwarzreiter during the Schmalkaldic War (maybe a little early for these figures, maybe not).  Also possible as Lobsters in ECW.


Next up, I have a unit that are clearly Reiters, from the look of their equipment and the plumed helmets.  As with the Cuirassiers above these fellows have 3/4 armor, black, and with pistols.  Different helmet styles, and slightly different armor styles are the big difference.


Moving away from the Renaissance (although not very far away), I also started re-basing my later Medieval Knights.  These fellows would fit right in during the late 14th or 15th centuries.  My inspiration?  I got these out to play a late medieval solo game of Chainmail (in honor of St. Crispin's Day), and was reminded of the basing situation.  That, with a new box of bases staring at me, told me to put off the solo game, and get the Knights re-based.  (as opposed to Chaucer, who would have them Debased).



This evening, I sorted out the first part of this collection, all of which need to be re-based.  In doing the sorting, I uncovered four basic categories of knights. 

• There are knights (of different helmet designs) on chaffroned horses.  
• There are knights on horses with just harness.  
• There are knights on barded (metal barding) horses.  
• And there are figures (knights?) who are carrying standards, musical instruments, etc - that could be part of these units.

I selected out the knights who were mounted on horses with just harness (and not full chaffron or  barding).  There were enough to do 14 stands of knights (3 figures per stand).  Those are who I based this evening (pictured above).  So why pull out the un-chaffroned knights?  Wargamers (and wargames army lists) love to differentiate.  Variety is the spice of life, after all.  In many army lists, there are second tier (or even third tier) Knights, representing either lower nobility, poor knights, mercenary heavy horse, etc.  These will be instantly identifiable on the table, as being different from the chaffroned knights, or the barded knights.  And there is still a lot of variety in pose, equipment, and armor style (probably too much variety in armor style - but I go to war with the army I have, rather than the army I want).

Finally, a few units I actually based a few nights ago.  These will see service in an upcoming 2nd Punic War game (at Fall In 2016).  Four Roman units, at three stands per unit.  These are in with my Late Republic Romans, but from looking at the equipment, and depending on the theater of operations, these could be (possibly) Pre-Marian, on up to maybe 1st century AD.  At least in 15mm scale, that is my claim. (the High Medieval knights are in the background).


 All this in addition to work I've done lately on my 16th century infantry (Swiss, German, and Spaniards).  In a day or two when the glue is set, I will flock the bases on all those above, and they will be off to fight in Flanders. Or Burgundy. Or Gaul.  Or Saxony.  Or Lincoln.  Or maybe just stay here in Stafford.

Pax.