Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Pikes, Muskets and Flouncy Shirts => Topic started by: Battle Brush Sigur on July 13, 2020, 03:43:07 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/ (https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/07/in-deo-veritas-rules-review/)
(https://www.tabletopwelt.de/uploads/monthly_2020_04/EU6paY2WoAADu17.jpg.b294dc6c854149d2f4555003309960df.jpg)
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!
-
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
-
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 (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?
-
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
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OlZuRoVGHLgLfWu_jH5Wv_ENgRMwX_f-e8jsPjFdtaOX_zJPxONPUPNGQPorMrhGEXL_6p7b9XSphg=w2560-h1440-no)
-
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.
-
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
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OlZuRoVGHLgLfWu_jH5Wv_ENgRMwX_f-e8jsPjFdtaOX_zJPxONPUPNGQPorMrhGEXL_6p7b9XSphg=w2560-h1440-no)
That's one very delightful looking 10 mil army Fred!!! :-* :-* :-*
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
My figures are all in 10mm, these are some League of Augsberg ones, so perhaps a little later
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OlZuRoVGHLgLfWu_jH5Wv_ENgRMwX_f-e8jsPjFdtaOX_zJPxONPUPNGQPorMrhGEXL_6p7b9XSphg=w2560-h1440-no)
They look lovely :-*
Didn't even know the League of Augsberg did 10mm.
-
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 ???
-
I don't think Barry does them in 10mm Richard. I'm guessing that these are Pendraken ???
Pendraken and Warfare Miniatures use the same sculptor for this period.
-
They look lovely :-*
Didn't even know the League of Augsberg did 10mm.
Glad you like them. They are Pendraken figures, for the LoA period.
I do think Clib may well have sculpted both ranges though, one in 10mm and one in 28mm
-
Pendraken and Warfare Miniatures use the same sculptor for this period.
Warfare do 10mm?
-
Warfare do 10mm?
No. Clib sculpted both ranges, Pendraken in 10mm and the Warfare one in 28mm
-
No. Clib sculpted both ranges, Pendraken in 10mm and the Warfare one in 28mm
Gotcha :)
-
'ello. :)
Here's the battle report of my first test game of In Deo Veritas, along with some thoughts on basing in general and specifically for IDV:
https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/07/in-deo-veritas-basing-woes-and-test-game/ (https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/07/in-deo-veritas-basing-woes-and-test-game/)
(https://www.tabletopwelt.de/uploads/monthly_2020_07/IMG_0993neu.JPG.dbe63bf7fb42c0fcd23acea49a4b9273.JPG)
Hope you enjoy the article and find it interesting. :)
-
Great looking game there, some really nice figures.
Thanks for the detailed write up, you seem to have found the rules good
-
Fabulous looking table! Did you make that mat or purchase it? If you did buy it, who sells it? I just played my first solo game yesterday and am working on the report now, not near as pretty as yours. 15mm figures...
-
@fred: Thanks very much. :) Yeah, I think I 'got' the rules now. Which leads me into the problem of not being sure which my preferred rules set for the period is. Either IDV or Twilight of Divine Right. I really can't decide. At the moment I'm leaning towards IDV, but maybe it's just because I just had an enjoyable solo game and am familiar with the rules now.
@vtsaogames: Thanks! It's a bought mat from Cigar Box over in the US (ordered via North Star). It's a pretty standard mat. Marsh land possible? Took a while to arrive, but very much worth it. I like the felt look and feel without it being too fuzzy. As you can see in the photos I throw on bits of foliage and so on to give it some "volume". Works lovely I think. Yus, I saw your report! There's some beautiful 15mm sculpts out there for the period. Only reason I went with 10mm is monetary reasons given the fact that it's my own little solo pet project and I have to do all the sides involved. I also really like the 'battle painting' look I saw so many times in pictures and the originals at Vienna army museum.
-
Hello, friends. I've been crazy busy over the past weeks, so I forgot to post the big new AAR.
Here's the battle report of my Battle of Höchst:
https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/08/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-hochst/ (https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/08/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-hochst/)
(https://www.tabletopstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/endgame-mid-anholt-crossesshoop-1.jpg)
Hope you like the article! :)
-
:-* :-* :-*
Fantastic!
Great write up, and beautiful table and minis. Oh the minis... ;D
-
@Ray Rivers: thanks very much. :)
Well, here's the battle of Wimpfen (which chronologically came before the battle of Höchst, but I guess that's my modus operandi now :P )
https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/08/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-wimpfen/ (https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2020/08/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-wimpfen/)
(https://www.tabletopstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/IMG_1783neu.jpg)
Hope you like it. :)
-
I did!
Great batrep and once again... the minis are fab! :-*
-
That game looks fabulous!!! :o :-* :o
It illustrates just what is possible with the smaller scales :-*
Please keep posting more!! 8)
-
@Ray Rivers: Thanks very much! :)
@Atheling: Thank you; that's very kind of you to say/write. Well, since you asked so nicely... ;)
Wimpfen again, but this time with Twilight of Divine Right rules (and thus in another thread):
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=126624.0 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=126624.0)
-
Great looking games - and good write ups.
With doing lots of remote gaming I have been setting up fairly clean games recently, to help the players on video spot what is important. Your games remind me that adding more bits of flock and bushes to break up open areas is a good thing.
-
Thanks very much!
Yeah, since I play all solo I can get the table rather messy, and the little bits and crums of flock on the table are a great way to make mats look more natural. It's s trick I nicked from a mate. Slightly more work tidying up (and beware of opening a window next to the table on a windy day! :D ), but it just looks so much nicer.
-
Heyhey, it's been a while, so I thought it's time to put another In Deo Veritas game on the table. Since I did all the larger battles of 1622 on the table already I can't really deliver a big anniversary game, so instead I looked towards the latter years of the war and went for the battle of Herbsthausen which took place in 1645. It saw a French-Weimarian army under Turenne being rather surprised by an Imperial-Bavarian army under Franz von Mercy.
Heyhey, I finally got an In Deo Veritas game on the table again. Since I was rather into the Palatinate phase of the Thirty Years War the past few years I (lacking foresight) kinda played all the larger battles that would have their 400th anniversary this year already.
Which is why I looked into the latter years of the war and went with Herbsthausen 1645 this time. It's a solo game with minimal house rules and you can read the AAR here (available in English and German):
https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2022/09/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-herbsthausen-1645/ (https://www.tabletopstories.net/language/en/2022/09/in-deo-veritas-battle-of-herbsthausen-1645/)
(https://www.tabletopstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/tableschrift.jpg)
Thanks for reading and I hope you like the article! :)
-
Great report and photos Sigur. I am intrigued by both IDV and ToDR for my ECW games although I imagine would have to make amendments for 28mm; shouldn't be too hard.
-
Just love your AARs as I've always found the 30 Years War fascinating. And your tiny armies and brilliant paint jobs..........eye candy at it's best. Thanks for posting this.
-
@Codsticker: Thanks very much! Yeah, that shouldn't be much of a problem. ToDR is entirely figure size agnostic, IDV gives movement ranges and unit sizes, but are pretty easy to switch up as well. How wide are your ECW units again?
@MGH: Thanks for reading and the nice words. :-) Yeah, the TYW is fascinating indeed, which is why it was my first foray into historical wargaming. It's an endlessly rich period. Maybe not in terms of field battles, and I can't stomach researching the period for too long in one go, but there's so much interesting stuff going on, so many colourful characters and frankly so much entirely human horridness (On other forums I have dedicated thirty years war threads and I usually call them a variant of "Grimdarker than 40k could ever be"). I do like my collection of little toy soldiers though.
So when I finally put my figures away again I took the time to take stock and finally gave all the units a number on the bottom of the bases.
According to this I now have:
Horse: 27 units (4 bases each, so 16 figures): 19 ranked (cuirassiers, arquebusiers, reiters, anything in between), 4 dragoons, 4 light cavalry. That's not bad, but especially for certain battles I could do with more cavalry units.
Pike&Shot: Now this is a bit foggy. Depending on whether I set them up 3 deep (for really early, huge mass formations), 2 deep (pretty much anything from 1600 to ~1640 or so) or just 1 deep (for small or basically line formation). It also depends on the scenario and ratios between the opposing armies. But overall I went on to using 2 bases deep (100x40mm footprint), and if I set'em up that way I got 18 units. However, to set them all up like that I still need 8 more bases of musketeers. So that's something I need to add. If I want to ramp it up to a whopping 37 units (one base deep), I'll need 10 more bases of musketeers. It's highly unlikely that I'll ever need that much infantry in one game though.
Cannon: With 10 field guns, 4 light guns and 6 limbers I'm pretty good. I think I also still got some more field guns in the box somewhere if need be. But need does not really be. There might arise some situation in which I maybe need more limbers, but it's also unlikely.
Odds and ends: I got enough baggage trains bases for each side, 14 generals, 3 units of skirmishing musketeers/forlorn hope/commanded shot/dismouned dragoons if necessary, 1 unit of swordsmen and 3 petard teams!
So after doing this project for 10 years now I think I'm set up pretty well for almost any scenario. :) Next on the list would be windmills and dedicated command bases for Gustav Adolf and Wallenstein so I can play Lützen at some point. I'd also like some more field fortifications.
-
@Codsticker: Thanks very much! Yeah, that shouldn't be much of a problem. ToDR is entirely figure size agnostic, IDV gives movement ranges and unit sizes, but are pretty easy to switch up as well. How wide are your ECW units again?
Ah well they can get a bit unwieldy; large regiments measure in at 320mm but there is rarely more than one or two on the table at a time. Most end up at about 240mm. Really we should be playing on a bigger table with units about 40mm less in frontage and 40mm more in depth. My plan is to reorganise at some point.
-
That's a proper unit size for 28mm figures. :)
The suggested unit frontage for IDV (ToDR is flexible in that regard, as mentioned above) is 75mm, so your units are basically 4 times that. If you wanna get the rules (they're rather inexpensive to get from Helion) I'd suggest a larger table for one, as you mentioned, and increasing the command ranges to something like a whopping 21". The rest of the ranges should work, or you just double them or something. As IDV tends to 'time lapse' movement a bit it's really far.
-
Nice work Sigur.
You did a lot of research for that battle.
Cheers,
CB
-
That's a proper unit size for 28mm figures. :)
The suggested unit frontage for IDV (ToDR is flexible in that regard, as mentioned above) is 75mm, so your units are basically 4 times that. If you wanna get the rules (they're rather inexpensive to get from Helion) I'd suggest a larger table for one, as you mentioned, and increasing the command ranges to something like a whopping 21". The rest of the ranges should work, or you just double them or something. As IDV tends to 'time lapse' movement a bit it's really far.
That is great advice, thank you. I will probably pick them up as I am laid up a home for the time being.
-
@Captain Brown: Oh, thanks very much, Captain. :) Yeah, I did a bunch of research. Funny thing about TYW stuff is that very often I run into a dead end with that pretty quickly because there are relatively few precise and detailled sources on stuff like that out there. On some battles there are eye witness accounts, but on others there's bascially just an estimated number of troops per side, the outcome and at least a pretty specific geographical position of where it took place.
I did do a fair amount of research on the commanders this time though. All those biographies are pretty interesting.
@Codsticker: Yikes, are you down with the Covid?
-
@Codsticker: Yikes, are you down with the Covid?
Nah, two bulging discs; had a second MRI this am to rule out surgery.
-
Ouch, get well soon, Codsticker 👍.
On the subject of rules, I find that my 36cm wide infantry units cause issues with those rule sets that use unit-width as an integral part of moves and ranges. I know that unit with deeper ranks look great, and seem popular at the moment, but I think they are not representing the right base depth / width ratio for troops in 6 or 7 ranks. It is an ongoing conundrum :D
-
As it is now our regiments end up looking a little too linear; I would like it them too look a little more like they do in period illustrations.
-
If you’re going for the look of the period art, then I get the idea of having more square units, rather than linear. I can’t shake the knowledge though that a 500 man battalia, in 6 ranks, will have over 80 files, and therefore actually look far more linear than square. My 36cm wide battalia, is 4cm deep, which is pretty close to 80:6.
I guess part of the problem is that we also play Napoleonics etc. with similar ratios of figures to ranks and files, and we want the 17th century figures to look deeper. Perhaps the only answer is to go 2mm and have a 1:1 ratio of men to figures :D .
-
My 36cm wide battalia, is 4cm deep, which is pretty close to 80:6.
Well that is a substantial unit. lol Under my proposed plan my 36-40 figure units would end up 280mm wide and 60mm deep.