"What rules do you play for the WOTR ..?" Topic

What rules do you play for the WOTR ..?

Lion rampant

I used to use Warhammer Ancient Battles but it involved too much dice rolling so I made up my own…

To the Strongest!

DBMM

The Bloody Barons
I use these for battles.
Don't play WOTR skirmishes, so have no useful comment on that.

link

Summary here
A set of rules written solely for WOTR, not a rules with a "patch" for WOTR.

martin

My own.
Bills Bows and Bloodshed version 2.5.
These work with modules of any size 40mm, 30mm etc provided both sides use the same sizes.
I am hoping to get them printed this year and for sale.
My army list is pure WOTR but the rules could be used for the whole 15th century and probably as far back as the 13th century.

I dislike Bloody Barons as the longbows are far too powerful when, in reality, firing soon tailed off as ammunition ran out and men tired. That's when they closed to hand-to-hand fighting. BB also does not allow battle lines to gain any advantage. Trial games I saw at shows had units just wandering around the table in a world of their own. In reality the line of battle was all important, WOTR armies which failed to form one suffered badly.

Barry

we have been running a very successful programme of Edgcote 1469 battles using Hail Caesar

Most recently at the Society of Ancients Conference and the BBC's Northamptonshire Day.

For Bosworth I used DBA with 54mm figures in a simple quick demo, and for Northampton 1460 I used Armati II.

I think getting the terrain, command and scenario right are key: a strong narrative combined with fairly fluid mechanisms works best.

Phil
SoA Shows North
Northamptonshire Battlefields Society

To the Strongest!

Barry
Your rules sound terrific.
Until they are published no one will know though.
Give us a date for publication.

I assume you have copied WRG DBM type mechanisms?
In addition your review is of the 2005 version of Bloody Barons.
The new version is called "Wars of the Roses; The Bloody Barons".

I will certainly publish a review of your new rules when they are done.

martin

Flower of Chivalry

BBDBA

@Martin Goddard
Bills, Bows and Bloodshed to be published: "Soon".

My rules are WOTR specific and date back originally to the 1980s. They are NOT DBA/DBM in style as I find those rules too esoteric by half. I call DBA/M rules 'the dancing modules'.

In style Bills Bows and Bloodshed is closer to old school WRG (pre-DBA) with the separate four phases for movement, missiles, melee and morale. Also included is an extensive army list for WOTR with dates when troops are or are not available. I differ from WRG by not creating separate Lancastrian, Yorkist, Tudor or Yorkist Pretender armies. Instead all troops are available but some units, such as the Calais Garrison, can only appear on one side. And if you want Border Light Horse (effective light cavalry) then you have to have at least one less well armoured Northern foot unit as well.

There is also a section on livery jacket colours which is an expanded version of one which I wrote for the Lance and Longbow Society and which has been much copied and re-copied since (and plagiarised with all my original errors intact). :(

Under my rules longbow shoot very well for the first move, tail off a bit for two or three moves and then drop to half effect. A fair representation I think.

Barry

They are NOT DBA/DBM in style as I find those rules too esoteric by half. I call DBA/M rules 'the dancing modules'.

Have you tried V3 of DBA, Barry (a much better take on medieval fighting than earlier versions)? or are you judging on the 'heritage' …

That said, I much prefer bland mechanisms driven by detailed narrative over detailed mechanisms as our sources really are not robust when it comes to how medieval armies (particularly 15th century) fought … weapons, combat styles arrangements by battle etc. all a lot less clear than pundits like to imagine.

Phil

I own but never played WRG rules pre-DBA, and have played some Warhammer versions. Those rules are the worst about "dancing" because they use IGOUGO activation combined with charge mechanisms that reward the first to initiate contact. Bad combo.

And no one uses George Gush's Renaissance Rules ?

"A Coat of Steel" by Perfect Captain.

@Yesthatphil:
I really cannot get into DBA/DBM/DBR.
It has been noted by many (inc me) that there are no units in these rules that reflect units in real life, rather than just modules that function virtually as a unit at a company or troop level. While this works at DBA level, by the time you scale up to DBM then the lack of a unit structure is noticeable. Those who have played DBR for the English Civil War said it was jarring that there were no pike and shot regiments, as such.
I dislike the whole DB* approach which is why I wrote my own!

I have always favoured house rules or personal or club level rules if you cannot find a set which you really like or which you feel covers the period properly.

Barry

@Paskal:
Yes I have used Gush's second edition Renaissance, I liked them and I have even borrowed ideas from them. He also favours three good moves of shooting for longbow followed by a marked deterioration in rates-of-fire. This is realistic in my view.

But, these days, modules seem the way to go and I am happy to adopt modular rules. It broadens the appeal of my rules. Any rules which require a new army or a massive re-basing are unlikely to be popular.

B

RFCM "Bloody Barons"- the original version.

I find it hard to believe that armies during the period were anything more than loosely organized mobs. Splitting forces into units for gameplay that then operate and maneuver independently seems arbitrary. But it's not much fun to have two masses of troops just crash into each other. At that point it's just a dice rolling exercise.

My point is that none of the rules are "realistic"

To The Strongest

To The Strongest

While this works at DBA level, by the time you scale up to DBM then the lack of a unit structure is noticeable. Those who have played DBR for the English Civil War said it was jarring that there were no pike and shot regiments, as such.

Of course I wasn't advocating using DBM … even less so DBR – and I agree with the criticism of DBR although there are scarcely any similarities between the period we are discussing and the ECW, So I think disliking DBA for the WotR because DBM lacks a unit structure and DBR doesn't work for the ECW is 'non linear' at best .

Phil

I find it hard to believe that armies during the period were anything more than loosely organized mobs. Splitting forces into units for gameplay that then operate and maneuver independently seems arbitrary. But it's not much fun to have two masses of troops just crash into each other. At that point it's just a dice rolling exercise.

Well, there's a lot there to discuss – and I'd agree that a heavily unit-based system with lots of manoeuvre isn't the way to go. But that doesn't mean that the armies were not articulated. We know they were (we just don't know a lot about what – if any – potential that gave for minor tactics)

As for realism? Well, that's not a word I think is always helpful in this context: I have carefully crafted the scenarios and forces for Bosworth (DBA), Northampton (Armati) and Edgcote (Hail Caesar) and I think they hit a window I'd term 'plausible' within the limitations of trying to explore a historical event through the mechanisms of a game. But as I said above, that is more to do with scenario design and narrative content.

As for non-historical battles (which may be what Paskal is after) I would be less bullish. They are primarily games.

Phil

I hope that your foot units in line move more than 2" a turn.

I too recommend Historical battle DBA for WOTR. My current game for it is Blore Heatn. It plays very well. It also works well for continental battles of this period…Enguinegate being a good example.

I'm not sure I understand the issue with lack of set units. Groupings in this period were ad hoc, not regimented by a permanent structure.

Joe Collins

The problem with the George Gush's Renaissance Rules is that normally it is impossible to mount a complete historical army at the rate of 50 figures per 1000 real men.

Well, personally I hate the rules with several figures on a stand.

Another thing I find that the rules before 1985 are nice.

Paskai – try moving this lot with idividually based figures – Ravenna at 1 : 50

Marignano at 1:40

Some of my units are quite big -

And finally, Cerigola at 1:20 (50 figures = 1000 men).

192 Swiss representing the 4000 present at Cerignola would be quite difficult even to set up, let alone move, if individually based. With each figure occupying just 15mm x 22.5mm an accidental mid block figure fall over would be a disaster, and it would be all too easily done with long pikes.

I guess, you only do skirmish games?

@various

While formal regiments and companies did not usually exist in Britain, there were some close parallels.

The medieval retinue was the basic unit in England, Wales and Lowland Scotland. This varied in size, according to the pocket of the lord, and this was often made up of smaller retinues raised by squires or lesser lords. The Walter Strickland retinue, already mentioned in other threads, was thus a 'sub contract' between Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, for Walter Strickland to bring in about 300 longbowmen and billmen to join his main force.

In parts of Scotland and most of Ireland the retinue was replaced by the clan or sept while along the borders of England and Scotland we had the border families (Armstrong etc) which may have functioned as clans.
Typically in Ireland units of Gallowglas or Kerns were 80 strong and this strange number MIGHT be accounted for by dead men's pay – a system more common in later centuries but undoubtedly rooted in the 14th or 15th century. The unit leader was probably PAID to provide 100 men but he fielded 80 and pocketed the 20 men's pay for himself.

Returning to England what we have is a lord's retinue (let's say the Earl of Salisbury) all wearing the same basic colours but made up of smaller retinues on sub-contract. But then we have some big lords with as many as 13 or 14 recorded badges. How is this? One theory is that some badges were 'local' or traditional and may have been inherited from parents and grand-parents estates. We have to remember that most people were illiterate but could recognise colours and signs. Thus the livery jacket, the badges and the long standard or short square livery banners were very important, a point acknowledged by Oxford at Bosworth when he told his men to stay close to their banners.
It is known that Edward IV inherited and used dad's Falcon In A Fetterlock as well as other badges inherited from his mother's side. One very reasonable theory is that the larger a lord's holdings the more badges he had as they served to identify troops from individual areas, towns or estates when they mustered in. This is just a theory but would have allowed some degree of command and control within a unit. If some troops dressed in Edward's blue and murrey (wine red) are said to have been stealing from the locals it might be difficult to catch them. But if the men stealing had falcon badges then Edward can trace their commander and arrange some accountability. Likewise if the falcon men are seen straggling on the march, fleeing or deserting then their commander is going to have a very bad time explaining all this to Edward!

My personal view for WOTR is that I like to see big units, not clusters of individual modules like in DBM/DBMM.

In a recent battle which I fought under Bills, Bows and Bloodshed my centre battle was made up Somerset and Oxford's separate retinues plus some artillery. Behind them was a small supporting unit of foot knights providing rear support which I could also feed into either Somerset or Oxford's units if they start losing a melee. My rules allow supports and bolstering.

My left wing was Exeter's retinue with one separate unit of Levy bill and bow while my right was Northumberland, one unit of Levy and one unit of Welsh. Each wing also had some horse.

Morale in my rules is thus on a retinue or unit level, not a wing or the whole army level. Thus an individual unit can break and rout, troops either side must test for seeing that rout but if they survive the morale test they can probably fight on.

The point should also be made that mercenaries were certainly arranged in companies from an early period while Charles the Bold took a lot of trouble to arrange company and battalion-type organisations with even company flags. None of this would be well represented in DBM, hence one of my objections.

My biggest objection to DBA/M/MM/R type rules is still the endless die rolling and the 'dancing modules' approach. But that is a very personal point-of-view.

Barry

I don't doubt that armies were composed of men raised by prominent men and that those men provided the raised men some article of similar colored clothing But i doubt that those men were trained, trained together, or had any standard drill. And i doubt even more that the raised group of men had ever trained with other groups of raised men. Which leads me to question whether these various groups functioned as a unit ( in wargames parlance).

I'm not saying rules should reflect this exactly as it would be pretty boring. I'm just saying that I question whether any of the rules mentioned reflect what really happened.

The answer to the original question therefore depends on subjective personal preference, not historical fidelity.

@ olicana:

I do not practice skirmish but you have something against?

I first search the maximun of different battle orders on a battle to try to guess the approximate strength of the units of the 2 armies, then I represent the smallest unit of the two armies by 5 figures (alas the George Gush's Renaissance Rules which is very much requires it, but I would like the smallest unit to be represented only a single figurine) so I know how to do my two souls because I am obliged to do both armies for one battle because I can not force someone to make the opposing army without counting the other problems that it would bring.

@ Warspite1:

In a medieval retinue there are several types of fighters so several types of units because I do not think that they were mixed. So the George Gush's Renaissance Rules is very good.

@ Neli Creoruska:

Yes the system of rule plays also in the choice it is for that I chose the George Gush's Renaissance Rules, she is very good.

Paskai, your wrong if you think I have something against individually based figures and 'skirmish type' games. At the weekend I was a player in this one (though, granted, it's a bit bigger than the average skirmish game people play – and I don't play small ones):

youtu.be/COp33AwY5-4

But, for battles with 'formed' troops, why bother with individual figures. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. I just don't think that when you have to move 1000 figures plus, basing them individually doesn't make much sense.

Paskai, I'm not picking a fight here.

Regards,

James

I also find it difficult to believe that the "units" would be composed of men armed with the same weapons. I suspect that the retinues stuck together and so that you'd have fully harnessed "knights", billmen, and archers all mixed in together. Again, not very wargames friendly since we like to have different types of units that have different fighting characteristics and are all armed the same.

NC, your observation is correct.

This is the crux of game versus simulation. Most rules tend to be overly prescriptive as to 'content' of units.

I've always found that WotR is best done with 6 types of basic unit:

Bows
Billmen / spearmen
Men at arms
Stiffened
Cavalry
Artillery

Within those categories their is a variation of power – i.e. not all bowmen are the same, some would be liverymen, others levy, and others mercenaries with crossbows in some cirumstances.

Stiffened would be basic troops fronted by better troops: They would benefit from having better troops willing to take the brunt of the fighting. From a wargaming point of view, this category of troops allows small numbers of men-at-arms (etc.) to be spread over a wider frontage. It's a category of 'unit' that is absent from most rule sets.

Hail caesar

@Paskal

You said:
"@ Warspite1:
In a medieval retinue there are several types of fighters so several types of units because I do not think that they were mixed. So the George Gush's Renaissance Rules is very good."

I am not sure I understand what you said here.
I too used mixed weapon units under George Gush first and second edition Renaissance. Bills, bows and foot knights in Retinues, bills and bows with the Levy and bill/bow for South Welsh and spear/bow for North Welsh. I have ALWAYS favoured units with mixed weapons. I have never argued against it.

My current Bills, Bows and Bloodshed army lists follow the same pattern.

Barry

@olicana:

You have missed out several troop types.

Mercenaries – pike, crossbow, handgun and longbow.

Irish – gallowglas with long axes, light kerns with javelins

Border Horse – light cavalry from the Scottish/English borders, good at skirmishing but not frontal charges

Welsh – similar to English bill and bow but probably lighter armour/no armour and able to tackle steep hills easier. Plus the North Welsh may have still used long spears and javelins.

Scots – long spears but some people treat them as pikes. National Scots disappear from England after the 1464 treaty.

Barry

Hi Barry,

Actually, I didn't. I mis-spoke and I should have said 'melee troops' rather than bill / spearmen.

I'll give you light Kern for their movement potential, but these too could be put in the bow category with a big range amendment.

Everything else falls into those categories with only minor changes for factors. What is the difference between an Irish axe and a bill, for instance?

It's not the weapon so much as the quality of the man using it. This is true for many weapons in the medieval and renaissance period (and earlier). Too much emphasis is put onto the shape of steel in some rules rather than the quality of the men.

The rest of your troop types are just a differing quality of one of the categories I've stated, largely a man thing rather than the stick he's carrying.

IMHO. Gamers, looking for a game edge, get too hung up on the shape of the weapon carried. It is a personal opinion based on a lot of reading, because there are very few instances of WotR history recording a battle turning on which melee weapon one side had (I can't name one, can you?). Just a thought, if we are getting historical.

It's one of the chief reasons I went over to the Italian Wars: Here, in the fulcrum of weapon change, and change in tactical outlook, these things did become important – so much so that these things were reported on by contemporary chroniclers. This isn't due to a step change in the way things were recorded. Believe me the contemporary histories for the Italian Wars are just as bad, printing press or no (I thought there would be a step change but really, there isn't).

Again, not picking a fight, Barry.

Regards,

James

I was not looking for a fight, I am far too relaxed after a good weekend.

You certainly missed out Border Light Horse as a category.
I treat them as light cavalry in my rules as they are cross-border raiders. Handy for pursuits and recon but unlikely to stage a frontal charge and more likely to evade than counter-charge if hit by other cavalry. I do not allow heavier cavalry to evade.

I would certainly distinguish pikes from other melee troops. Different formations and tactics but formidable if not disordered.

Handguns would have a greater morale affect (the shock of the new) but probably fewer casualties, again this is the way I play HGs.

Barry

I really liked these rules too: "Vows of Iron":
rampantlion.org/rules

@ Warspite1:

I do not know if the unit were mixed during the WOTR?

@ olicana:

It's not Paskai but Paskal.

@ all:

I wonder why the size of the units – in some old rules – were always at least 5 figurines and maximun 50?

I worked with Phil in putting the Edgcote Hail Caesar scenario together. Phil did pretty much all of the work, and there was a good deal of hammering to make it fit, which tells yo usomething.

How WotR armies are made up is something that we can debate for quite a while. One of the best modern summaries is in Mike Ingram's new book for Helion on Bosworth, link which is now the standard work on the battle.

I did a lot of work on army sizes for my book on Edgcote, that was published for the 550th anniversary link . One of the things I learnt from doing that is there's a lot of supposition dressed up as fact. We (Northamptonshire Battlefields Society) ran an all day conference with experts from the Battlefields Trust and the University of Wales on Edgcote and the campaign. It is possible that our understanding is imperfect. One of the issues as well is that some of the ground in respect of the WotR discussion has been fought over a lot, and positions are entrenched. People persist in claiming that Towton was the biggest battle ever fought in England, when it isn't even the biggest battle fought in Yorkshire (that's Marston Moor) and probably not even in the WotR (that's most likely 2nd St Albans).

As for rules… my general feeling is that generic ancient/medieval rules may give you a good game, but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with real life. I've used Armati, AMW, Hail Caesar and DBA and played Bloody Barons and also Poleaxed. All of the first four need some tinkering to make a battle look like a WotR battle. The latter two you have to buy into their interpretation of the history. I thought as a game BB was better than Poleaxed.

In the end I thought that most systems underplay the importance of commanders and leaders, so my own house system "Field of Battle" focused on commanders giving lots of orders each turn. I am not sure what a battle looked liked, however. There's a view that they all have a massive arrow storm and that this is significant. However, only Towton has any reference to that being the case as such, and the circumstances at Edgcote are a bit special.

In the end you have to decide what sort of game you like, and go with it. Looking at my recent Sumerian rules link the core mechanisms of close formed infantry and a Fear Test where opposing sides attempt to impose themselves psychologically on their opponents might be worth a shot.

@Paskal

The question of mixed troops in WOTR units has already been answered. YES, units were mixed. Bill and bow for certain (see Strickland etc), plus foot knights added in some elite units.

***

The size of wargaming units is limited in many rules – including mine – because of the 50% rule.

In most rules when a unit loses 50% of its starting strength it has a morale effect, normally a dice roll morale test but sometimes an automatic halt or retire. If there is no maximum unit size, say 50 figures, one side could field one or two HUGE units of 80, 90 100 figures each and would then be immune to the 50% rule for a very long time.

The smaller size of units – 5 or six figures – is not really important but anything less than 5 would just look silly.

Barry

@Warspite1 : I think you are right on mixed units, the question is how they were mixed. It is most likely by the late 15th century that armies had rows of archers in the front ranks, with spears/bills behind. We tend to under estimate the number of spears armies had, and focus on the bills, but Tower Armoury records show many more spears in evidence than other pole arms.

The 50% rule is a contentious issue, and has been every since it was talked about in the 1960s. It also assumes that your combat resolution system has casualty removal as a key component, which isn't necessarily a given.

So … @ Trebian … @Warspite … what causes a WotR battle to end?

I'd say panic is a good contender … panic at ambush … panic at treachery … panic at enemy reinforcements (and/or arrivals from unexpected directions) …

Combat losses? Hmmm … not so much. Indeed it is quite hard to judge that one as we don't really have much data on 'in combat' losses – and, indeed, I'd suggest most of the losses are suffered in the panic/rout (certainly regards well-harnessed men of quality)

The 50% rule is a contentious issue, and has been every since it was talked about in the 1960s. It also assumes that your combat resolution system has casualty removal as a key component, which isn't necessarily a given

From a historical point of view I see nothing in the sources for this period that suggest there is any merit in that approach …

My advice? Try Treb's book on Edgcote
or Mike's book on Bosworth
and ignore anything written on Bosworth prior to 2009 (and pretty much anything on Wikipedia )

Phil
Northamptonshire Battlefields Society
SoA Shows North

@ Trebian:

The 50% rule is indeed a question more than litigious, and it drains me.

I'll see if I can do it without her now.

There are rules where it is not necessary to make a claim, it displeases me automatically.

@ Warspite1:

what you say is true but I tend to respect what the rules say and I believe that these units of a minimum of 5 figurines and maximun 50 figurines that are found in the old rules were to facilitate morale tests.

@Yesthatphil:

I think that the older the books, the more interesting they are.

But it can be fun to read Ingram's book, what new discoveries about Bosworth apart from the skeleton of Richard III ?

@YesthatPhil: I'd say that battles end as one side loses the will to fight on, often through shock. So I'd agree that panic is a clear factor. If any one has a different view then I'd need to be pointed at the evidence for heaps of bodies on the battlefield and people fighting over them during the WotR.

Panic at seeing your nearby supporting unit(s) run away.

Wars of the Roses ended 1487

This is from 1520's (33 years later):

21 ranks deep formation: (Each rank is 13 files wide)
1-4th rank: "Doppelsöldner" – armoured pikemen
5th rank: halberdiers
6-7th rank: "Mittelsöldner" – mercenaries
8-10th rank: "gemeinen söldner" – common mercenaries
11-13th rank: "Führern, Furirern, Waybeln und Schlachtschwerter" together with the two ensigns – swords
14-18th rank: "gemeiner söldner" – common mercenaries
19th rank: "knebelspeiss" – boar spearmen
20-21st rank: Doppelsöldner – armoured pikemen

The Hauptmann stod in the middle of the 1st rank while the Leutnant stod in the last rank.

On each side of the men with pikes, halberds and other melee weapons stod 23 ranks of men with firearms, each rank was 5 files wide. The first 4 ranks were made up of "doppel-schützen" i.e a part of the shot was on double pay as well.

Per: TMP link – See Daniel S 16-April-2010

This may have nothing to do with your WOTR – but it is interesting to see how the differently armed/armoured troops were arrayed.