Pike and Shot
Part 4

WRG Renaissance (rules)

by Pat Condray

A player looking for Renaissance wargame action in a new location is far more likely to find players using, or at least knowing, the WRG rules than any other, and tournaments, however one may feel about their strange results, are rarely heard of with any other rules.

THE MILWARD PLUG BAYONET ACCORDING TO CONDRAY.

All of which proves, at least, that, in spite of what critics say of these rules being over complicated, they must be playable. With this in mind I've made trials of the WRG 1975 Ist Edition, the schismatic 1976 "Musketeer" variant, and the current (1979) 2nd Edition.

I am certainly not privy to the internal decision making processes of the WRG. However, apparently George Gush speaks ex-Cathedra for the WRG on Renaissance matters in both the 1975 and 1979 editions. Curiously both editions freely acknowledge a debt to Davi~ Millward's rules, the second edition of which were published by the author and Heritage Models Inc. in 1976. Having tried out the three sets of rules, I am inclined to applaud the decision of the WRG elders in backing Gush.

Under both the official WRG Editions, the musket, while not overwhelming, is a respectable weapon. Although Milward mentions in his introduction that gunpowder made headway (notwithstanding occassional reverses) against both bow and spear, his rules do not reflect that appreciation. The effective range of the musket is only 150 m. while most troop classes charge over 200 m. Troops contacted during a move fire at 1/2 effect. That is combined with a -2 tactical factor against troops who are closing on you at over 200m.

Taken together, these provisions make it difficult for a musketeer to harm anyone approaching him with malice afterthought. One would almost suspect that these rules had been written to prevent the evolution from ancient to modern warfare.

If the musketeer had it bad, his plight is worsened by the issue of a plug bayonet. So armed, if armed is the correct term, he may not fire on a turn in which he is contacted, and if contacted from half a move out counts, as unformed with bayonet not fixed.

On the other hand, Millward credits a fixed bayonet with being a "pole arm", or in the same class with the halberd. This is apparently because he does not represent a separate category for the infantry spear. The 1979 WRG rules more accurately class the fixed bayonet as an infantry spear.

As I read the Millward rules, a trained soldier can't take a plug bayonet out of its scabbard and stick it into the end of his barrel in the time it takes a trooper to cross long musket range (550m.) I would guess that during a charge, with an all out gallop occuring in the last 200 paces or so, cavalry of that period would cross 270m per minute. However, since horses are theoretically capable of much faster speeds, it would be better to compare a normal move for formed infantry at no more than 3 mph, or 81m per minute.

At that rate, during 1/2 turn, a foot soldier could march for roughly 1.25 minutes, or stick a bayonet in the end of his musket in half a turn.

The WRG 1979 2nd Edition allows the musket to take effect at 300 paces with cavalry in order crossing 160 paces at the charge. This suggests a turn of less that a minute (relative to other tactical events) I won't belabor the probably necessary foreshortening of tactical moves. At any rate, the 1979 edition allows bayonets to be fixed or unfixed in half a turn. By this standard, a WRG bayonet may be fixed in the time it takes to march 100 meters. Clearly the WRG bayonet is a great technological innovation over the Millward bayonet.

Since my 1683 Austrian and Bavarian musketeers are armed (if armed is the correct term for such an encumbrance) with plug bayonets, I find these provisions to be of some interest- my feeling being that it is not significantly more difficult to fix a plug bayonet than to draw sword or reverse musket. However, the average enthusiast for the pike and shot era will have little use for this discussion, so I will go on to matters of more general interest.

Clearly a matter of interest must be the question of charging pistols and lancers. My first impression of the 2nd Edition WRC was that the problem had been clarified to advantage. In the Ist Edition lancers got a bonus of 2 on their first charge, 1 thereafter. "Order" horse charging (presumably cavalry in 3 lines) got 2 on every charge. I figured this must be cumulativeespecially since a lancer was 2 factors less effective against extra heavy cavalry and 1 point less effective against heavy cavalry.

Since the new edition favored the lancer equally in the second and subsequent charges, and gave him 3 versus 2 on the first charge, it looked as though the matter had been straightened out and need not be cumulative. However, the lancer has been docked correspondingly in his basic tactical factor. Moreover, while sword and pistol counted as a melee category in the 1975 Edition, the 1979 Edition allow up to 2 pistols to add 1 factor each to mounted swordsmen in melee. The accuracy of the pistol does not appear to bear adversely at the full gallop as at the halt, while those shooting at them as they come head on are reduced in accuracy by the motion - but I digress.

I am in a quandry about this point. Some WRG players express doubt that the bonuses are meant to add up-i.e. 3 points for charging lance plus 1 point if close or open order, 2 points if in order. In a recent demonstration at the Smithsonian the Touhey brothers and Mark McGloughlin who represent a very active WRG Renaissance group in far off Montgomery County, routinely added the bonuses.

Whatever the case, in real life the single shot pistol was a mixed blessing. Using two of them in a melee without giving up the sword in a galloping charge makes bayonet fixing look easy. Montecuccoli says of this problem (Barker, p. 146-147).

    "The cuirassiers proceed ... massed together. . their swords in their hands. in order to avoid being thrown into confusion they charge at the double. However, in order to guarantee a more solid impact, their speed can be increased a litle when they are very close... Under no circumstances must the men be allowed to grab their pistols, turn their flank at twenty paces from the foe, and fire a salvo at him. The intention of those who have been want to follow this tactic is to wheel about broadly in order to reload or to pick up fresh pistol. However, the other side will not give them an opportunity to complete their orbiting movement but rather, having construed their gyrations as flight, will pursue them so hotly that the horses will take the bit into their mouths. The attacking unit will therefore be unable to regroup. This badly invented style of fighting is more suited to hurling bombs than for close quarer combat.

    Nevertheless, if the first rank of cuirassier should wish to use its pistols, it must do so only after it has first tied them to its swords with a ribbon, or else the swords must be taken into the hands which hold the bridle. once the pistols have been rapidly discharged, and this weapon can have no effect unless it is applied point blank-they are tossed away or put back in the holsters-if there is time. Thereupon each reiter grasps his sword and plunges into the melee without attempting any caracole. "

Montecuccoli was not alone in referring to throwing pistols away before the melee and after firing. Fortescue mentions the French horse at Dettingen attacking in that fashion I believe. However they were, by his account, trotting. Any effort to fire two pistols point blank while galloping into a melee should seriously impede the use of the sword, and require the cavalrymen so doing to spend two turns dismounted searching the area for their discarded pistols before they can use them again.

Mounted pistol fire at close range, as noted by Montecuccoli, was a common practice, but of dubious value, even for troopers attacking at the trot., Ellis (Cavalry, the History of Mounted Warfare p. 85) cites the Swedish regulations at the latter part of the 17th century as requiring the first rank to fire one pistol at 40 paces, the second at 25 paces, the last 150 yards being covered at the gallop. Here we clearly have a case of order horse charging, the ranges obviously designed to allow time (though not much) to change pistols and draw sword. I would figure a maximum of 3 seconds between pistols and 4 to fumble for the sword.

The results must not have added two factors to the melee value of the cavalry, since Charles X11 discontinued the practice. I have a suspicion that the general contempt in which the pistol was held by the more sucessful cavalry commanders between Charles XII and the advent of the percussion revolver has led the WRG to deny the melee value of the pistol against light cavalry-thus justifying its terrible effectiveness in the Renaissance but allowing for its subsequent disuse on grounds that most cavalry became (with respect to armor) light cavalry, therefore it was of no use.

Of course, the rules recognize that cavalry without breastplates is more susceptible of pistol casualties, not less, and the rate of closure does not vary by armor class, so there is no real justification for that notion.

Among other differences noted between 1st and 2nd editions include: the charge factor has been reduced in melee and rationalized a bit. I like this. Chronic gamblers will not.

Archers still show reduced effect after 4 turns of fire. I wonder if this can be altered when defending fixed positions or after a trip back to the baggage? Or perhaps after occupying the terrain fired on? Oh well. I haven't been able to find any point charge for archery weapons, or for the extreme skill required to use them. I usually bill as for a carbine, though the mounted bow is clearly superior in these rules.

The move sequence is set down more clearly. This has made it clear to me that pursuit casualties are inflicted without taking time away from the pursuer's movement or conflicting in time with any melee they may engage in with a relief force. I consider this erroneous, but not prohibitively so. This permits two separate melees in one turn without impact on movement, and I would be inclined to require pursuing troops to commit themselves to a pursuit turn in order to inflict pursuit casualties. Some rules, however, have initiative move sequences that are even worse.

"Outscouting" has been picked up from other WRG periods. The side with the most light troops gets to deploy after seeing the enemy's dispositions. I suspect this can be a devastating advantage. I would prefer forcing the scouts to actually win that advantage in some way, but this approach has the advantage of simplicity -not a customary advantage for WRG rules.

The suggested limits on terrain features are reasonable, but should be taken as suggestions only. These rules recommend further that the player who sets up the field must give the other player his choice of sides to start from. That policy goes back to H.G. Wells if memory serves me correctly... ah, there it is, page 39 of LITTLE WARS:

    1. The country must be arranged by one player, who, failing any other agreement, shall be selected by the toss of a coin.

    2. The other player shall then choose which side of the field he will fight from.

An excellent precedent and sound rule, although, with the diverse types of armies involved in WRG Renaissance games, even the choice of sides may not redress bias in terrain layout.

Oh yes, the 1979 Edition contains comprehensive siege rules. On these I cannot comment in detail, although, perhaps due to my lack of familiarity with siege rules, they appear sound. In general, however, the foreshortening evident in tactical rules (i.e. tiem compresses around tactical events) is even more marked when one attempts to compress sieges into game length.

As a result, if siege type operations are attempted on the battlefield odd things may occur. For example, in a test game against Bill Rutherford I moved a battalion of Turkish irregulars supported (guarded) by a janissary detachment 2 turns onto the board and had them start digging. By turn 6 they had a sizeable earthwork supporting the guns in my center. All of this was accomplished in the length of time required for a battalion in line, not firing, to cover 240 paces, or longbow shot. This makes a four minute breastwork. The breastwork takes even less time if we compare it to the fixing and unfixing of bayonets. It takes me no more than 3 seconds to fix or unfix a plug handled knife into the barrel of my old 11mm Remington. Infantry can throw up their earthwork in the time it takes to do that 8 times, or in about 24 seconds.

Probably a more practical matter, the Gulay Gorod , which threatens to turn battlefield action into sieges to the advantage of Russian and other slovenly Renaissance armies, can move almost as fast as troops in order, and offers significant protection against light, medium, and heavy cannon. From pictures of the Gulay Gorod in GORGET AND SASH it appears to be a portable board fence, most of it probably not over 2" thick. If a canonball struck it the lethal effect would be multiplied, not divided.

Enough quibbling. I probably haven't touched on every weak point in these rules. However, they are not only more complete, but slightly more playable, than the 1975 version, which, in the main, were superior to the schismatic Millward 1976 Edition. It behooves any enthusiast of the period to take time to familiarize himself with these rules, since they appear to be more widespread than any other, and when your favorite period is pike and shot you have to be a bit flexible.

Of course, any group that plays regularly will come up with its own interpretations and changes, but that is only to be expected.

Response: Letter to Editor (v4n4)

More Renaissance

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. III #5
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1981 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com