It seemed to work... Thoughts on Portable Lutzen

My recent Battle of Lutzen (1632) project threw up several thinking points, mostly occasioned by the way my armies have been designed and based. Having switched from a design of my own to the DBR game system (huge mistake, but not due, apart from a want of 'finish', to any real problem with that system)  I found myself unable to make the reverse decision. Perhaps that was a bullet I ought to have bitten, after all.

What this has led to is having to create units with multiple stands. Now, that's OK, but I have a feeling that the Antoine Bourguilleau designed Portable Pike & Shot Wargame calls for single-based units - even unto Swedish brigades and Spanish tercios. A tercio comprising 9 figures of pikemen forming a square, with 3 musketeers/arquebusiers capping each of the four corners, with each figure occupying a 15mm (front) and 20mm (depth) base would fit easily within my square grid cells, and not too badly within my hex grid cells. The latter would overlap the cell boundaries only a trifling amount.

Well, not to be: too bad. Let's work with what we have. 

What I had in mind was that the infantry units would default to a 6-stand battalion, comprising a centre of 2 x 4-figure pike stands, and wings of 4 x 3-figure shot. Like these fellows on the right of the picture: 

On the right, four Swedish battalia, each of 20 figures.
The Imperialist foot facing them comprise 8 extra pikemen

This is roughly how a DBR game would look (this pic is dated May 2008 in my archives). Of course, the stands being 6cm wide, that gives us a unit with a frontage of 18cm - requiring two grid squares to accommodate. It was this, and thinking about tercios that gave rise to multi-grid-cell units. The tercios featured in my recent 30YW battles.

The concept seemed to work, although it did lead to a staggered 'line' drown up 4 tercios abreast at the outset of the Lutzen battle. Shaken out into a lozenge formation, the four tercios looked the part.

Before continuing with the topic of unit sizes, and their implications, I want first to outline where I intend to adapt the original concept to my own set up. I intend to try out several changes to the system

1.Artillery:

1.1 Artillery is divided into 'field' and 'battalion' guns
1.2 Field artillery can not move, except to change facing, unless there is a horse team available to move it. Once hitched (taking one move) the artillery may move two hexes per turn.
1.3 Battalion guns can be manhandled 1 hex per turn
1.4 Artillery present no obstacle to the movement of other units, apart from preventing their landing on the same grid area. A foot or horsed unit may simply 'pass through' friendly artillery. Enemy artillery overrun may simply be removed from play 
(I am very tempted to permit the 'capture' of artillery with the idea they they may be turned upon their former owners. Wouldn't that be fun?)
1.5 For the purposes of the game, I increased the range of my 'field' artillery to 6 grid areas - hexes or squares.  I'm very tempted to make it 8. At a 6-hex maximum, short range is 2 grid areas. 
1.6 The firing range of battalion guns is the same as for artillery in the Portable set: 1 grid area at short range; 3 at long. 
1.7 Rather than limiting shooting to along a single line of hexes or squares, I propose this:
When firing through a a square or hex side, the 'firing arc' is the grid area immediately in front, and one grid area either side of the centre line thereafter. 

Firing arcs;
Field battery: Red (short) and pink (long)
Battalion guns: Orange (short) and yellow (long) 

1.8 I am considering the option to shoot though a hex corner (not square corners if using a square grid). The reason for this has to do with the size and shape of my foot units. If so, the 'arc' of fire will be 1 hex either side of the center line - a firing arc 2-3 hexes wide.

2. Horse.

2.1 There is but one real adaptation I want to make, here, and that is to the 'Dutch' cavalry - harquebusiers - as defined under the PP&SW game system. These fellows tend not to go in for the up close and in your face stuff, but prefer to stand off and shoot. They also, it seems, favoured rather deep columns, which, shooting by introduction in a species of caracole, kept up a considerable rate of short-ranged fire whilst slowly moving forward (at least, that is how I figure it). 

This is quite in contrast to the 'Swedish' school of thought, which was to get tore in with the sword. The question is, how does one make it worthwhile to depict the deep columns of 'Dutch' harquebusiers? I propose that such a unit -

(a) adds 1 to its shooting dice if it has a third rank, 

or alternatively, 

(b) counts 1SP per rank, up to a maximum of 3. 

2.2 Light Horse.
The Imperialists often fielded Croats, Cossacks and Hussar light horse. I have added them to the mix: Move 4 hexes, 2SP each, counting as 'poor' or 'average'. 

3. Foot

3.1 Forlorn hope:
These for single stand units, rather like a skirmish line, with 1SP only. They may be classed as 'poor' or 'average'. Actually, these fellows were often brave men who volunteered for some reward or perhaps commutation of punishment. The chances of survival were pretty slender! However, brief experience, especially as defenders of a protected position, have shown them hard to shift, so they don't count as elite.

3.2. Battalia/ Brigades:
The three-stand battalia or 'brigades' I used for the Lutzen battle I reckon ought to be 3SP instead of 4. They each have the same firepower as the tercio, but eight of them still double the firepower of the 4 tercios. 

However, I also have in mind fielding 6-stand 'battalia'. Now, these of course, span 2 grid areas wide - reasonably convenient on a square grid battlefield; less so with a hex grid. On the latter, the unit would 'naturally' face the hex corners, as shown here:

With such a formation, one feels that it might engage two shooting targets in a given turn, or both wings concentrate upon the hex in front of the pike block. An enemy standing there would of course engage the battalion as a whole. A species of tercio might also be depicted with this orientation:

This whole idea seems to present rather a different game, with movement, fire and close combat through the hex corners, in effect, rather than the hex sides. If I were to test this idea, I'd be inclined to add 2 to the standard SP values for both: 6SP for the battalia; 8SP for the tercio.

4. Combat results.

For the size of the game, I seems more convenient - certainly speedier - that all hits result in a SP loss. Whether a unit taking that loss gets also pushed back one grid area might depend upon its quality (poor, average, elite). For the most part I applied the hit=SP loss during the Lutzen battle, and the thing went quite briskly considering the size of the game.

All these ideas will require play testing some time. Meanwhile, I am doing some prep work for the Battle of White Mountain (1620). My Swedish army will be co-opted to represent the Protestant  Bohemian Army.



To be continued...

Battle map for White Mountain