"Rules question for Hail Caesar / Pike & Shotte players" Topic

Hello all. I'm planning a set of rules for which I'm using the Warlord Games HC/P&S/BP rules for some starting points…

My question is to do with unit sizes. I know theses rules are very laid back in terms of unit sizes, bases and number of models on them, with a basic large/medium/small/tiny categorisation. But I'd like to have the options as to how many ranks units are deployed in….

For example, a unit of 30 men can be deployed as 3x10 or 5x6.

Under the HC/P&S rules, is there a notable disadvantage to having a unit with a much wider frontage than another such unit with identical stats?

I'm currently thinking the disadvantage of the wider frontage is you can't get so many units squeezed in to add to the pool of attack dice.

The advantage of the wider frontage is the unit covers more ground to 'block' the enemy, and also has a wider field of vision for shooting.

A narrower frontage is good to 'squeeze in' more units.

This seems like a good trade-off to me, and thus I would be happy for my rules to allow the players to choose their unit frontage without any glaring disadvantages or advantages to what they choose.

BUT… am I missing something else? Is there a reason I'm not seeing as to why having units with a wider frontage would be a bad move (if you were playing competitively)?

If you know how a type of unit fought historically you could always let that be your guide. I don't think any of these rules sets were designed for competition play.

In HC you can only get two units fighting one if at least one of the smaller units has half or less the frontage of the larger. So you can't easily "squeeze in" more units.

If you know how a type of unit fought historically you could always let that be your guide. I don't think any of these rules sets were designed for competition play.

Yes, I understand that, and I'm not actually a 'competitive' player myself. I'm just thinking if I'm writing my own rules, it would be nice if everything was 'neat' and the maths added up, you know?

In HC you can only get two units fighting one if at least one of the smaller units has half or less the frontage of the larger. So you can't easily "squeeze in" more units.

Ah, I see… So having your units a little bit narrower than your opponents isn't really going to give you any sort of advantage?

not sure if it applies in HC/P&S but in BP you get a bonus to morale tests after combat for having unengaged side and/or rear supports , but no additional dice during the combat .

The reason for having your 30 figure unit as 3 ranks of 10 rather than 5 ranks of 6 is that the former gives a better representation of the actual footprint of a unit. Even in the Pike and Shotte period it was unusual to have more than 6 to 8 ranks, so a unit of 600 men would have a frontage of around 80 to 100. In other words the frontage would be up to 10 times the depth. In later periods the discrepancy betwen depth of our model units and "real life" is even greater.
Some of us do like to strive for a degree of realism on our model battlefields, having a " gamey" option just does not feel right to me (but then I dislike competition wargaming, especially that which allows all kinds of unhistorical matchups.)

In HC you can only get two units fighting one if at least one of the smaller units has half or less the frontage of the larger. So you can't easily "squeeze in" more units.

Ah, I see… So having your units a little bit narrower than your opponents isn't really going to give you any sort of advantage?

No, no real advantage. Resolution is at the unit level, not the figure level.

The reason for having your 30 figure unit as 3 ranks of 10 rather than 5 ranks of 6 is that the former gives a better representation of the actual footprint of a unit. Even in the Pike and Shotte period it was unusual to have more than 6 to 8 ranks, so a unit of 600 men would have a frontage of around 80 to 100. In other words the frontage would be up to 10 times the depth. In later periods the discrepancy betwen depth of our model units and "real life" is even greater.
Some of us do like to strive for a degree of realism on our model battlefields, having a " gamey" option just does not feel right to me (but then I dislike competition wargaming, especially that which allows all kinds of unhistorical matchups.)

Yes I get that, and trust me I am on the same page as you. The reason I am asking about this is to make sure my rules (whether they end up as a HC adaptation or something more stand alone) don't allow these 'gamey' options. I want the first consideration in the size and formation of units to be "does it look good / right?". I just want to check that there won't be massive increases or decreases in a unit's effectiveness depending on what frontage / formation the player decides to use.

So what I'm understanding so far is that a slight increase or decrease of a unit's frontage has no real effect on the gameplay under these rulesets- great, that's what I wanted to hear.

I might have some more questions about the HC / P&S rules for this thread soon – I'm busy jotting down all sorts of notes and drawing up tables and charts and stuff….

As mentioned above, one unit typically flights one unit, so exact figure basing is not important, but the game runs more smoothly if you forms units that are vaguely the same width.

Excessive depth can cause a problem in game play. When units suffer badly from break tests then they can be forced to fall back. There needs to be room to fit the unit once it has fallen back. If there is no room due to friendly units being in the way then the unit gets the chance to fall back two moves instead of one. If there is still no room then the unit breaks and is removed. Rarely a problem with units 2 or 3 ranks deep, but when we have tried playing with very large, deep units, it caused some confusion. This may be a good thing for massive keels of pike? :-)

One thing to consider is just how many men/individuals does that have in it.

We know that a unit of 30 figures is not just 30 individuals unless you are doing a skirmish type game and then they would not be in a formation.

In Roman times unit of Romans were fielded in cohorts and would be ranked up to ten deep.

So that 6x5 would be more in line of how Romans fielded their units and would represent around 1000 men if you are using a 30-1 ratio.

What you need to do is some research on unit sizes and formations. This will help you a lot of determining how a unit should be deployed.

Now since I prefer a 30-1 ratio over a 50-1 since it does give the units more figures.

900 men unit at 30-1 = 30 figures in the unit

900 men unit at 50-1 = 18 figures in the unit

Oh and 900 men in a unit would be a very large force.

Most battles of the Middle ages only had 10,000 – 25,000 per side.

The Battle of Wakefield:

York had anywhere from 6,000 – 9,000 or 200 – 300 figures

Lanscaster's had from 15,000 – 18,000 or 500 to 600 figures

This is at a 30-1 ratio.

At 50-1 that would be:

120 – 180 figures for York

300 – 360 figures for Lanscaster

What exactly is the period you're interested in?

Pike blocks of the late medieval early renaissance were very different animals from say 30 years war or English civil wars.

A swiss/landsknecht pike block would be anything from 1500 to over 5000 men.

50 to 166 figures at 1:30.
The proto pike and shot formations of the Spanish were 600-1500 men.

To be honest I'm not really that bothered about the exact numbers my units represent. I keep that vague, and anyway it's more small-scale warfare I'm playing. Closer to, say 1:5. My 30 man-unit might represent 150 men, I dunno. I'm not playing the 'big battles' of history, rather my own small private wars.

My question was more to do with the rules technicalities of having the units of the table all having somewhat different frontages – does this lead to any unfair advantages or disadvantages? It would seem that the answer is no.

Okay 5 – 1 would be okay for many middle ages battles since many units did not number more than 300 men.

Thing to remember is that an unit with a wider front can be charged by more than one unit from the front.

Plus if they are doing a wheel movement it will take longer for them to cover the distance.

Mostly only shooting troops, Bowmen, Crossbows and Handguns would be deployed in a wider front since that allows for more figures to shoot.

It really boils down to just how you want your units to look on the tabletop.

As to advantages/disadvantages there really shouldn't be any other than impacts on movement.

Now I detest bucket of dice games (looking at you GW), since games should not be decided by which player can roll more dice.

For me, a unit of 30 would be either 3 dice or 5 dice depending on whether you decide between one dice per 10 or one dice per 5 rounded up.

Or you could do it by ranks as well, one dice per rank but you will have to limit the total number of ranks that could fight.

Otherwise, the WACC'ers will create units of 10+ Ranks deep.

Now units of 20-30 figures would be the normal for infantry and for cavalry 10-15 since Cavalry units tended to be smaller in numbers.

Now in dice per Rank example a unit deployed in a 3x10 formation would get 3 dice.

So if it got charged by an unit of 30 in a 6x5 formation it would be 5 dice to 3 dice.

Thing to remember is that an unit with a wider front can be charged by more than one unit from the front.

Plus if they are doing a wheel movement it will take longer for them to cover the distance.

Mostly only shooting troops, Bowmen, Crossbows and Handguns would be deployed in a wider front since that allows for more figures to shoot.

That sounds good to me – you could widen your frontage to cover more ground, but weaken the line (i.e. more enemy units can contact you), and yes it will make wheeling harder.

It really boils down to just how you want your units to look on the tabletop.

Agreed.

Now I detest bucket of dice games (looking at you GW), since games should not be decided by which player can roll more dice.

For me, a unit of 30 would be either 3 dice or 5 dice depending on whether you decide between one dice per 10 or one dice per 5 rounded up.

Again I agree, but it depends at how many dice you consider to be 'buckets'? I do like rolling a good handful of say 12 dice (rather than your example of 3 or 5), as it means there are more possibilities of outcomes, including wild and unexpected things (which I consider a good thing – less dice means the results of combats could be seen as more predictable).

Or you could do it by ranks as well, one dice per rank but you will have to limit the total number of ranks that could fight.

I considered that, but am leaning towards number of 'combat dice' being related to the overall (approximate) size of the unit, irregardless of how many ranks they are in. But if my 'standard' unit is 30 men (3X10) and my 'larger' unit is 40 men (4x10) and rolls a couple more dice, it has the same effect. Those 40 men could in theory be deployed 2x20 (not that I would ever do that) and still roll the same number of dice, but in that situation are open to being contacted by 2 or more enemy units and being 'outdiced'!

I should stress though that in reality the formations of units aren't going to vary much.

Again I agree, but it depends at how many dice you consider to be 'buckets'? I do like rolling a good handful of say 12 dice (rather than your example of 3 or 5), as it means there are more possibilities of outcomes, including wild and unexpected things (which I consider a good thing – less dice means the results of combats could be seen as more predictable).

Well with GW you roll dice per figure so an unit of 30 would 30 dice to hit then roll the ones that hit to see if they wound then your opponent would get to roll their saves.

There was a player who created an unit of 90 Undead Archers so that would be 90 dice. Oh and he had it so that all were poison arrows and hits of "6's" meant no armor save.

There is a limit.

I would only have hits so no to wound rolls or armor saves. Speeds up the game since when all said and done per GW way out of 30 dice only around 3-4 figures would have been killed.

So by just rolling for hits and taking out all of the other rolls the most dice that you should roll is around 5-8.

Remember that if an unit of 20 takes 3 hits that is a 15% loss in it strength.

Sure combat might last a few turns/rounds once they become engaged but I would not think more than 2-3 turns at most before one unit breaks.

Also unit morale is based on % of losses and not who caused more wounds in one round of combat.

So check at 25%, 50% etc… with the chances of an unit breaking growing with more losses.

You can up the number of dice that an unit can roll when in combat and I would consider using some other die then D6's.

D10's or D20's give a far greater range of results.