*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 05, 2020, 09:52:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: [Review] In Deo Veritas +++ Test Game AAR Added! +++  (Read 1140 times)

Offline Battle Brush Sigur

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 852
  • Brush-for-Hire
[Review] In Deo Veritas +++ Test Game AAR Added! +++
« on: July 13, 2020, 02:43:07 PM »
Hey hey, ho ho, it's me. Finally got to write up that In Deo Veritas review over on the site I use for that sort of stuff:

https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/07/in-deo-veritas-rules-review/



Thanks for reading, hope you find the article (available in German and English, as always) satisfactory. I'll see that I get those two battle reports up soon as well!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 01:22:49 PM by Battle Brush Sigur »

Offline fred

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2418
    • Miniature Gaming
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2020, 06:34:30 PM »
Thanks - a good review

Interesting to note that cavalry types and pike/ shot ratios aren’t modelled. And while I get that as an army commander I shouldn’t care about the differences between a few of my regiments and how they are equipped.  But I can see at times were I would care if my cavalry is still using one set of tactics when my enemy has moved onto a newer set. Or if my army is much less well supplied with muskets (or ammunition) than my opponent. Are there modifiers for units to try to model this kind of thing?

The basing seems close to what I have for my figures but not that compatible! My figures are on 40x40mm squares so close enough. But they are based with all shot or all pike on a base. With the expectation to use 1 pike flanked with 2 shot. So with these rules I would end up with 1 pike and 1 shot making a unit - which might look a bit odd

Offline Battle Brush Sigur

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 852
  • Brush-for-Hire
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2020, 10:29:44 PM »
Thanks, fred.

Good point, that. Stuff like that is rather easy to model within the confines of the game via modifications to dice numbers, the application of the raw/trained/veteran characteristics, or dice result modifiers. This weekend I played a game in which most infantry units were very short in musketeers due to them being redeployed to fieldworks or used as skirmishers along a linear obstacle. I modelled this by reducing the target number for shooting successes from 4+ to 5+ for these units. Some units in that battle also weren't even properly equipped with pikes, which might be represented by taking away their "pike" bonus for combat against mounted enemies.

The same battle featured two Spanish units for which I used the "early tercio" rules. Those units had just arrived the night before after a forced march, so I kept all the Early Tercio characteristics, but reduced their close combat attack dice from 3 to 2 (same as regular infantry battalions) to model the units being exhausted and while being able to keep the formation they aren't as aggressive in close combat as they usually would be, hence the dice reduction there.

As for cavalry tactics (or tactics during the period in general) I'm not sure that things are as linear as they appear in some books, in that one set of tactics was superceded by the other because it was better and so on. It's all a bit unclear, isn't it. Anyway, the same such modifiers can be used to model all sorts of diffferent cavalry tactics. Poor horses? Turn the units into "Raw" ones. Reluctant to charge? Use the "double brigade" rule (bit better shooting, bit less strong in close combat).

Got an unreliable ally on your left? Modify the wing cohesion target number and they're more prone to sit back or even take off.
Enemy caught by a surprise attack? Make enemy units start in a "disordered" state.
...


That's possibly the main thing I noticed about these rules - they appear to be a bit on the light side at first read-through, and especially the perceived limitations in units/formations/differentiation between tactics, unit sizes, etc. may look odd, but there are so many points at which we can throw in or change small modifiers to adjust and depict a LOT of battlefield factors.

You can download the free QRS. That should help getting a feel for what you can adjust in the game and how. https://www.helion.co.uk/docs/docs/in-deo-veritas-qrs-v1-1037.pdf


I'll get into basing in my next article about IDV. My units are also based in a different manner than listed in the book (I assume most people's will be). My infantry has a frontage of 100mm, cavalry 80mm. I just use the measurements for movement, shooting ranges, etc from the book as is because the base size isn't too off from what the rules suggest. The only thing I adjusted was command ranges. IIRC these are 6". However, my command bases are much smaller than the ones as listed in the book, and my units are wider, so I changed them from 6" to 8". (to be honest I also just dislike too small command ranges. Makes placing commanders annoying busywork I think.).

120mm frontages are pretty wide. For IDV I'd definately suggest using longer command ranges then, and possibly even a wider gaming table (if possible). Movement and shooting ranges should be OK. 120x40mm sound great for infantry though. They must look spectacular. What size of figures do you use?

Offline fred

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2418
    • Miniature Gaming
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2020, 07:32:47 PM »
Sorry Sigur, missed the reply

Thanks for the extra detail - it sounds like with a bit of thinking and work you can setup units to reflect the typical differentiators seen in scenario books. I've some ECW scenario books, and the number of different pike : shot ratios they give feels pretty over the top - but from these its fairly easy to at least work out the ones with very few of either, and the ones that feel just slight variants on normal!

My figures are all in 10mm, these are some League of Augsberg ones, so perhaps a little later

Offline Codsticker

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mastermind
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
    • Kodsticklerburg: A Mordheim project
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2020, 04:55:58 AM »
We have been modifying ECW scenarios designed for one set of rules for another and it does take a little practice to get things right; I imagine it would be the same process for IDV.

Offline Atheling

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 8276
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2020, 10:45:27 AM »
Sorry Sigur, missed the reply

Thanks for the extra detail - it sounds like with a bit of thinking and work you can setup units to reflect the typical differentiators seen in scenario books. I've some ECW scenario books, and the number of different pike : shot ratios they give feels pretty over the top - but from these its fairly easy to at least work out the ones with very few of either, and the ones that feel just slight variants on normal!

My figures are all in 10mm, these are some League of Augsberg ones, so perhaps a little later


That's one very delightful looking 10 mil army Fred!!!  :-* :-* :-*

Offline Battle Brush Sigur

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 852
  • Brush-for-Hire
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2020, 10:51:54 AM »
@fred: Yus, once you got an overview of the rules and how they interact it's very much possible to throw in small modifiers here and there to make the units fit the scenario. Very pretty minis you got there. Late 17th/early 18th century uniforms look great on a wargaming table. Are those pendraken minis?

@Codsticker: Yeah, in the end scenarios SHOULD be interchangeable between rules sets. After all they all aim to depict the same thing. :) Latest scenario I played was based on a book which thankfully had a pretty good report on the order of battle and the battle itself along with one of those eternally useful GMT scenario books.

Offline Codsticker

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mastermind
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
    • Kodsticklerburg: A Mordheim project
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2020, 02:54:55 PM »

@Codsticker: Yeah, in the end scenarios SHOULD be interchangeable between rules sets. After all they all aim to depict the same thing. :) Latest scenario I played was based on a book which thankfully had a pretty good report on the order of battle and the battle itself along with one of those eternally useful GMT scenario books.
The challenge I found is managing conditions/requirements in a scenario that are designed around one set of rules with specific rules in another . For example, in the Partizan Press ECW scenario books it may state that hedges or ditches Disorder cavalry. The scenarios were written with Forlorn Hope in mind and in that set Disorder (or Disorganised is the term it uses) reduces a units fighting ability. When we use Pike and Shotte Disorder has a broader effect- it reduces fighting ability and prevents the unit from fulfilling orders which can make one side's victory conditions more difficult than the scenario author intended.

Offline fred

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2418
    • Miniature Gaming
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2020, 08:40:33 PM »
That's one very delightful looking 10 mil army Fred!!!  :-* :-* :-*

Thank you! I really need to get the rest of it finished, it has been a very slow project.

Very pretty minis you got there. Late 17th/early 18th century uniforms look great on a wargaming table. Are those pendraken minis?
Thanks - yes they are Pendraken from their League of Augsberg range, lovely figures, but they do take a lot of painting!

The challenge I found is managing conditions/requirements in a scenario that are designed around one set of rules with specific rules in another . For example, in the Partizan Press ECW scenario books it may state that hedges or ditches Disorder cavalry. The scenarios were written with Forlorn Hope in mind and in that set Disorder (or Disorganised is the term it uses) reduces a units fighting ability. When we use Pike and Shotte Disorder has a broader effect- it reduces fighting ability and prevents the unit from fulfilling orders which can make one side's victory conditions more difficult than the scenario author intended.
Yes, this can be quite a challenge, you need to know what a special rule does in a certain game to know how to apply it to other games and their special rules.

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 791
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2020, 03:35:16 PM »
Got my copy of the rules in the mail yesterday and gave them a read. Quite interesting. A couple things got my attention. Sound (non-disordered) units have combat zones to their front, basically a zone of control. This appears to be just for full-size units (brigades and tercios), not sub-units (companies). Moving into or across a combat zone requires a test. Units that fail will halt, those attempting to close at point blank range. Having a cavalry unit halt within point blank range of an infantry brigade sounds like a bad idea. Pistols vs. muskets, hmmm. So it behooves you to disorder the target before charging its front. It also appears that you can freely close with sub-units, like commanded shot, dragoons and such. That seems an elegant and simple rule. Would like a FAQ to make sure I'm not over-thinking this.

The second thing is the pursuit rules, again very simple. A beaten army may suffer close pursuit (ouch), limited pursuit or none at all. In the last case both sides claim a victory. Spin doctors are not a new vocation. If your army is in dreadful shape and collapses in front of the enemy you are likely to pay a high price in additional casualties and level of defeat. If the enemy is nearly as bad off you may get away with little or no further damage. This argues against last turn heroics, though the option is there for gamblers. This lessens the need for variable last turns of the game. You know how long the game will last but a last turn banzai that fails can be very costly, another elegant rule. I've been thinking of how to do something like this for years and here it is, simple and effective. Each side counts any sound cavalry units and sound veteran infantry, adding a D6 roll. The type of pursuit is determined by how much higher the winner's score is. The parts of the losing army at risk are any routed or disrupted units. Should your army go about while still in decent shape (not likely but a possibility) they may get away without too much damage.

Unfortunately I have some projects that need to be done before I can plop down the figures and give this a test drive. Perhaps that will motivate me to get the projects done. Sigh.

Oh, and very nice armies, Sigur.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2020, 04:51:40 PM by vtsaogames »
And the glorious general led the advance
With a glorious swish of his sword and his lance
And a glorious clank of his tin-plated pants. - Dr. Seuss


My blog: http://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

Offline vtsaogames

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 791
    • Corlears Hook Fencibles
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2020, 06:10:37 PM »
Hmm, I only have enough figures for Cheriton and the free download Bolden Hill, a training scenario. I still have to borrow a few figures from other periods to complete the sides. Ah well, stick to hypothetical stuff until more figures are raised. And never ever will Marston Moor see my table.
For those who wonder what units are required for the scenarios:

Scenario   Ldrs    Foot Brigades   Foot Companies   Cavalry Brigades   Dragoons   Artillery   Misc
Fleurus   4/3   4/6                         2/              6/11                                  1/2 
Wittstock   6/5   8/6                         1/              15/12                       2/1       4/   
Cheriton   6/6   5/5                         3/3              10/8                       2/               2/1   
Marston
Moor          10/7   14/9                         6/4              15/15                       2/1        4/2   
2nd Battle of
the Dunes 11/9   13/9                         2/1              17/15                                    1/   
Lund            5/5   6/3                                         11/8                      2/3       3/1   3
                                                                                                                                     rabble
Herbsthausen   5/2   8/4                                 9/6                      1/                3/   
Bolden Hill   3/3   6/4                                         3/4                       1/                1/   
Oldendorf   4/6   9/6                                         8/12                      4/4        2/8   3
                                                                                                                                     units?

Hope that ends up formatted.

Edit: not really, oh well.

Offline TheDilfy

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 69
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2020, 02:44:00 PM »
Thanks, fred.

Good point, that. Stuff like that is rather easy to model within the confines of the game via modifications to dice numbers, the application of the raw/trained/veteran characteristics, or dice result modifiers.......

Thank you for the link and great review. The more I read from historical accounts the more I revisit what we mean by veteran, trained and raw / green and how they act and react to events and situations on the battlefield. If one can flex and adapt rulesets the better.

Offline Battle Brush Sigur

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 852
  • Brush-for-Hire
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2020, 12:51:18 AM »
@vtsaogames: Off the top of my head I think you got that right about the combat zones.

@TheDilfy: Thank you for reading. :) Oh yes, the categorization of raw/trained/veteran is an interesting one and of course "veteran" doesn't mean "maxed out high level soldier", but actually "someone who left service due to age, lack of war, or being wounded", doesn't it. I think IDV uses the terms broadly as three levels of troop quality, as so many rules sets do. That being said, "veterans" don't get any combat bonuses, but have an easier time regrouping, carrying out orders or not getting disordered in the first place.

One of the scenarios from the rulebook, Fleurus (battle report coming up this week), lists certain units as counting as "raw" (despite the guys having been trained and tested warriors), but on the day they were majorly unwilling to fight because they hadn't been paid in a long time. So the actual terms are more of a rules-internal nomenclature for a bunch of modifiers rather than to be taken all too literally I think.

Indeed though, the matter of what constitutes bonuses based on veterancy and how do they work in a wargame is a very interesting one, because once again it's about what's going on in the head of fighting men, and that's an interesting thing.

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 17400
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2020, 08:59:25 AM »

My figures are all in 10mm, these are some League of Augsberg ones, so perhaps a little later


They look lovely  :-*
Didn't even know the League of Augsberg did 10mm.

Offline Atheling

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 8276
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
Re: [Review] In Deo Veritas
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2020, 10:52:34 AM »
They look lovely  :-*
Didn't even know the League of Augsberg did 10mm.

I don't think Barry does them in 10mm Richard. I'm guessing that these are Pendraken  ???

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
85 Replies
16921 Views
Last post April 29, 2014, 10:46:49 AM
by LaserCutCard
0 Replies
617 Views
Last post January 15, 2015, 05:20:51 AM
by Dale Hurtt
1 Replies
825 Views
Last post January 30, 2016, 04:05:16 PM
by Brummie Thug
10 Replies
1608 Views
Last post July 28, 2017, 03:43:56 AM
by PatrickWR
4 Replies
168 Views
Last post August 01, 2020, 03:04:35 PM
by OB