DE BELLIS RENATIONIS INTRODUCTION This is a new generation set of wargame rules for 2 or more players covering Renaissance field battles, assaults and amphibious warfare from 1494 to 1700 AD. It can be used for, among others, the Great Italian Wars, the Turkish Wars, the Wars of the Conquistadors, the Moghul and Manchu Conquests, the Tokugawa unification of Japan, the French Wars of Religion, the Dutch Wars of Independence, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil Wars, Monmouth Rebellion and Williamite Wars, and the campaigns, largely unknown in Britain and America other than to Pike & Shot Society members, of Conde, Turenne, Luxembourg and Montecuculi. This version 2.0 incorporates the lessons of 7 years play worldwide and also includes new terrain choosing and deployment procedures to encourage the production of a battle plan. Our intent has been to provide the simplest possible set of wargames rules that retain the full feel and generalship requirements of 16th and 17th century battle. No order writing or record keeping is necessary and time-consuming reaction tests are dispensed with. Games are faster moving than with old generation sets and more interesting to spectators. DBR seeks to emphasise the talents of the general rather than those of the accountant and, despite the use of simple dicing procedures, fosters keener tactical awareness. The simple mechanisms produce effects much more subtle than may be apparent at first reading and should not be tampered with. No special rules are included for scouting, forced marches, accidental encounters or attacks on a marching force, since these will occur naturally as a consequence of players pressing ahead with march moves early in the game, sending detachments in front or laying ambushes. Wargamers have traditionally defined troops primarily by their weapons, sometimes listed in great detail, and their armour; and only secondly by their morale and training. We primarily define them by their battlefield function, which largely dictates both their equipment and their behaviour. A real general did not know that a unit had just lost a certain number of men, nor even its total losses until next day, if then. Old generation wargames rules that tell players losses suffered and inflicted during play are therefore inherently unrealistic. However, the general will usually be in a position to see if a body is pressing forward into the enemy, recoiling from the charge, being furrowed and staggered by round shot, throwing up its pikes in surrender or running for the trees. DBR provides players with that sort of information and that only. While its principles and mechanisms are similar, DBR is not DBM with extras. Some troop types have gone; some have been altered to reflect a shift in use and new ones added. PIP mechanisms have been changed to simulate the command systems and reliance on clumsy deep formations that had produced a slower style of warfare. Similarly, the battle rules now reflect the increasing dominance of the rolling fire of massed firearms. Another difference is that DBR is intended for small games as well as large, so is also a Renaissance equivalent for the smaller scale DBA. Copyright (c) Phil Barker and Richard Bodley Scott 1995, 1997 and 2003 CONTENTS DESIGN PHILOSOPHY. Page 2 REPRESENTATIONAL SCALES AND PLAYING EQUIPMENT. 3 TROOP DEFINITIONS. 4 ORGANISING AN ARMY. 10 PREPARING FOR BATTLE. 12 FIGHTING THE BATTLE. 16 TACTICAL ADVICE. 24 PROVIDING TERRAIN. 25 MISCELLANEOUS. 27 DIAGRAMS. i-vii 1 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY The function of the command and communications system in a wargame is exactly opposite from that in a real battle in that it is used, not to enable the general to manoeuvre his troops at all, but to prevent him doing so too freely. That in these rules is tailored to an era of cumbersome and slow formations. Although simple and arbitrary, it produces more realistic results than from more detailed systems incorporating written orders, transmission by messenger and interpretation by recipients. It also substitutes for elaborate testing of troops' reaction to events, and effectively simulates the reduction in armies' cohesion under stress of battle. The slow drills of regulars and increased subordination among irregulars compared with earlier times mean that no distinction need now be drawn between these. Wide envelopments beyond sight, battlefield treachery and advances not led or ordered by a general were not a significant feature of this era, so no provision is made for them. While troop behaviour had assimilated to that of regular troops, the behaviour of generals had become more irregular. Most nations' generals fought in the front rank and paid little attention to events in the battle until their personal fight was decided. Even if generals stood back from the fight, they lacked a suitable staff structure for effective distant intervention. Troops are primarily classified by their fighting methods instead of by their arms and armour. Finer grading within each type reflects contemporary perceptions of efficiency. We rely heavily on contemporary accounts and the latest research, which are often at odds with received opinion. Movement and combat is by elements, each consisting of a fixed number of figures based together on the frontage of a typical tactical unit of the era. Elements can be moved individually or be combined into and move as temporary groups. Although troops are not primarily organised into regiments, these are often conveniently sized groups in which to join similar cavalry or combine pikemen with shot. They can still be split or combined at will. Small bodies or columns on roads can be moved easily. Large groups are clumsy and difficult to manoeuvre. The vicissitudes of terrain and combat will bring a progressive visible deterioration in organisation that will be hard to repair. All combat is between single elements with neighbouring elements assisting rather than taking part directly. We differentiate between those, often indecisive, fire combats that we term “Distant Shooting” and "Close Combat" with bases touching. The latter differs from the conventional wargamers' "Melee" in that it includes not only edged weapons but also all shooting at decisive range. This is reflected in the depth of element bases, which represent not just that occupied by the men represented, but also the reach of their weapons. Our shooting ranges are based, not on theoretical maximum ranges, nor on modern estimates of effective range, but on those ranges at which weapons were actually used. For example, although composite bows were certainly capable of shooting several hundred paces, horse archers and foot skirmishers using them did so at point blank range, where they were equally safe from contact and much more effective. Conversely, firearms influenced battle results at beyond the ranges considered effective in the Napoleonic era, probably because shooting continued longer. In some cases, we allow only inferior grades of a troop type to shoot at a distance, the better grades being assumed to hold their fire until decisive range. The noise, flash and smoke of firearms continued to have an appreciable morale effect, especially concerted volleys on troops unused to them. Once beyond point blank range, there was little variation in artillery effect until the distance defined as "at utmost random" was exceeded. Low rates of fire were partly compensated by dense targets. Our combat mechanisms focus on the results of actions, not on calculating casualties that would not in reality have been known except in a very general way. An element may be forced to recoil a short distance still facing the enemy, may flee as a body, or may at worst be destroyed, which represents its survivors breaking, dispersing and fleeing the field individually. However, element loss will rarely be heavy before the army starts to break up. The local effects of fatigue and morale are taken into account in the combat results. Their wider effects are simulated by the beaten command rule, by which the collective morale of a command may reach breaking point and the whole command then crumble into rout, though much of it may rally if pursuit is not pressed. 2 REPRESENTATIONAL SCALES AND PLAYING EQUIPMENT FIGURE AND MODEL SCALE This is expressed as the height in millimetres of a figure representing an average man. Naval elements use models of reduced scale, rationalised as them being seen distantly from the shore. 25mm is the original wargaming scale and is ideal for public demonstration games at large conventions, where its easier visibility for spectators is an advantage. 15mm is now the most popular scale and combines cheapness and convenience while still permitting detailed painting of individual figures. 6mm and 2mm progressively increase visual realism, the latter at some cost in convenience. GROUND SCALE This is the relationship between the distances measured on the table and those they represent on a real battlefield. It is based on the constant that the frontage of a troop element represents 50 paces at normal scale or 100 paces at condensed scale. Our basing produces the following ground scales: If using 25mm figures: 50 paces = 60mm (normal) or 30mm (condensed) on the table. If using 15, 10 or 6mm: 50 paces = 40mm (normal) or 20mm (condensed) on the table. If using 2mm: 50 paces = 30mm (normal) or 15mm (condensed) on the table. Distances are quoted in multiples of paces (p), each of 2.5 feet or 0.75 metres because a man's stride has remained constant throughout history, while such units as cubits, yards and metres come and go. It was also the most common measure during this era. Distances on the table should be measured with a 300p card strip marked at 50p intervals, supplemented by an 1,800p length of string for maximum artillery range. The width and depth of element bases also provide visual clues to distance that will often obviate measuring.