It was whilst responding to a comment in my previous posting that an idea occurred to me that I simply had to follow up. Martin Rapier had a good word to say about my 2-hex tercio for the Portable Pike & Shot Wargame. The thing looks good, but for the idiosyncratic pike to shot ratio: 8 figures to 12. It were better reversed. I wasn't that chuffed about my battalia, either, with their 8 pike figures to 6 shot.
All very wrong, whatever the 'look'. (At least that was what I was thinking when I typed this. I'm now not quite so certain of that, at least for the tercio.)
But the thought suddenly flashed across my mind: what about a three-hex tercio? It would mean changes to how units are meant to be oriented... So I had a look...
 |
| A late type of tercio formation: 12 shot, 16 pike. |
... and here it is. One tercio. I seem to recall that later tercios dropped the rear musket 'sleeves', leaving a vaguely Y-shaped formation a bit like this. Here the pike to shot ratio is 16 to 12, which seems to me 'about right'. And then I go and Wikipedia the topic. Lo and behold - a tercio with 1200 pikes; surrounded by a 'corselet' of 1400 muskets, plus a further 500 muskets divided equally among the four 'sleeves'. A 12:19 pike to shot ratio. So maybe my 2-hex tercio ain't so 'wrong' after all. Oh, well: to continue...
 |
| A 'battalia' - or 'brigade'. 12 shot, 8 pike. |
Of course, this sort of thing - the 3-hex tercio and the 2-hex battalia (or brigade) would require a major rethink about the rule set and the conduct of manoeuvre and combat. For example, both musket wings/ sleeves, could concentrate their fire upon the centre hex in front, but only one could shoot into the respective hexes alongside. Nor would there be any question of facing a hex side, either.
How would the horsed formations work? I'll leave that question for another time. The thing will simply have to be tried out.
To be examined anew...
Hello Ion,
ReplyDeleteOn the pike to shot ratio and distribution, you could always just explain it with friction from long marches and the tendency of pikemen to get rid of their pikes and grab a musket instead.
Based on my limited knowledge, the sleeves of shot from a tercio were a lot less rigidly formed compared to later, more linear formations, but, like you, I struggle to find a good solution to represent that in games.
Hi Andrew -
DeleteYour comment reminds me of an early battle using my own rule set (now forever lost to antiquity). I found myself using the shot 'wings' semi-independently in certain situations, dealing with threats to a single formation from multiple fronts. I was never quite sure whether the 'sleeves' were all that flexible, but it seemed reasonable so long as the sub-units stayed close to the main body.
Having thought about the 3-hex tercio and 2-hex battalia/brigade, I think it is worth following up, but I've also decided that the 2-hex 6-stand tercio will 'do', and will probably go for the 1-hex 2-stand 'battalia' as well. The 2-hex, 6-stand formation might stand for a brigade, perhaps.
I've just tried out a more convincing Swedish brigade that covers 4 hexes (side facing) that involves 2x4Pk, 4x3Sh and 2 battalion guns. The thing looks a bit unwieldy, but the rule set might permit a single activation point applying over the whole formation - including shooting at multiple targets.
Lots to think on, there!
Cheers,
Ion
I have a feeling that I might finish up knocking together a whole new PW rule set (or two) for 30YW/ECW war games.
Cheers,
Ion
I understood that the tercios has stopped using the four shot 'wings' on each corner and were largely formed a pike block with two wings but with musketeers also in the front ranks across the pike block. The main difference from others being the size of this block and its depth.
ReplyDeleteRob -
DeleteUseful info: thanks!
An extra shot element added to the front of the 3-hex tercio would accommodate that 'later' version, methinks. But it is also starting to look as though we might be looking at a convergence towards the 6-stand 'battalia/ brigade that I pictured above - a formation suited to both sides.
A further PW development might suggest the Swedish 'battalia' of 2x3shot 1x4pike, and the Imperialist 'tercio' of 2x3sh and 2x4Pk. That might be the simplest solution of all.
All part of my 'think complicated; do simple' philosophy, you understand...
Cheers,
Ion
I am increasingly used ng units facing the hex vertex for pre twentieth-century warfare. It just works so much better in all sorts of ways, even if it allows zig zag forward movement (not necessarily a bad thing). To avoid excessive concentration of fire, I normally require casualties to be "democratic". Real soldiers don't ignore the guys standing right front of them to shot at those blokes over there.
ReplyDeleteMartin -
DeleteMore than once it has seemed to me that there was no really compelling reason to insist upon hex-side facing - on hex-boards anyhow. Although I have used square grids (e.g. Blacklands War and Kavkaz Campaign) I've had less reason in these battles to look into that prescription.
On the matter of target selection, I am inclined to be more liberal - especially in the matter of artillery. To be sure, shooting at those blokes over there instead of them folks in your face seems unrealistic. But there are justifications, I think. For one thing the b's over there being the priority target, might tend towards 'tunnel vision', and/or one's own battle smoke obscuring the close approach of an enemy nearby. You'd be surprised how often battle accounts tell of a surprise effected upon an enemy whose attention was already engaged elsewhere. On a large scale, that is pretty much what happened to Howard's Corps at Gettysburg, Day One.
Having said that, I am far less liberal in respect of solo wargames. Mind you, one MIGHT add in rules that continuing to shoot at an enemy target do not require spending an activation point (this could apply to any continued movement). So changing a target to deal with a more imminent threat might require an activation point, whilst continuing to shoot at the blokes o. t. need not. I probably wouldn't bother with such rules, but they are worth thinking about.
If you're thinking about how to distribute the fire of these big formations, if there is no compelling reason to choose this or that target, I'd leave it to the shooters. If there were three targets to shoot at, concentrating on the centre is actually fairly realistic I think. I have read that in later wars the casualties of any given unit tended be incurred more by the centre companies than the flank.
All grist for the cogitative mill...
Cheers,
Ion
I wonder if it’s a case of PO-TAY-TOE / PO-TAHH-TOE ? At the end of the day it’s still just a game - and, as long as YOU are happy with what’s represented on the battlefield/tabletop then that’s all that really matters. Sure, it’s good to have your toy soldiers arranged in what appears to be a historically correct formation, but there’s always the ground scale representation to take into account anyway. As I mostly game solo then at least I don’t have to justify what or why I’m doing what I’m doing.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Geoff
Geoff -
DeleteIf one is gaming disparate historical periods, one has, I think, to take into account the distinctive features. Having said that, there is some question as to what formations were adopted by the armies of the period 1618-1648 - and the English Civil War as well. It seems they changed, rather, both the Spanish style tercios and the complicated-looking Swedish brigades devolving into the much simpler pike-and-shot battalia.
My next experiment with 30YW will probably involve my 2-hex tercios, against the 3-stand battalia. But I'm also thinking of other possibilities - one being a 5-hex tercio and a 3-hex Swedish brigade. On my table, these would represent fairly small scale actions, I think.
I have an idea that the Brigade was designed for flexibility. Come to think of it, imagine the drill required for the tercio to move around. So what I have in mind is that the disparate elements can move semi-independently, so long as they remain in contact with another element of the same formation.
At some point I will enlarge upon the ideas I have in mind.
Cheers,
Ion