Ritter is yet another set of rules to game battles from ancient to medieval times. Some may ask, "Why bother?" After all there are already so many of these sets of rules. What will be different is this set? I have no answer for such comments. Ritter may turn out to be nothing new. That would be okay with me so long as it meets the goals I have for the game. It is the goals/design parameters that may make Ritter different.

Goals

As everyone knows, I do Matrix Games. Even though you haven't seen me writing many articles over the last year and a half, I've still been out running convention MGs, and developing business contacts. Ritter then is a game that will be used with a Matrix Game.

At this time, I used well painted 6mm figures placed on diorama quality terrain fields to run MGs. I've found that the increase in visual presentation (over water colored area maps) makes more people want to play my games. So I need a set of rules that can run battles on such a terrain field. Clearly any standard set of rules will work. Unfortunately, even DBA (which seems to be the fastest set of rules out there) still takes 1/2 hour to play. I generally have only four hours to run entire campaigns, so standard sets of rules are too slow.

For the last two years, I've been playing around with "Great handfuls of dice" games (ie games where the players get to roll as many dice as they want to move and shoot). GHOD games work well for situations where maneuver is unimportant. They are no go for maneuver games - which is what much wargaming is about. Still GHOD is very fast. Battles can be resolved in ten minutes using it. So the game must be as fast as GHOD.

The main point of my games is to run an MG. So battles are secondary (if still important). So the game must not pull too much attention from the campaign game. Commercial rules always are written to be stand alone games that can pull a crowd by themselves. That again proves how unfit they are to the task of being support games.

MGs allow players to manipulate things about their armies. They can argue to improve their morale or training, they can try to hurt the morale of the enemy army.

So the battle game has to have some kind of numbers that MG players can manipulate. But there should be no more than three or four numbers or players will not be able to remember them. If that was not enough, I also want Ritter to be a game about maneuver (just like other wargames). And for it to include the potential for players to "herd" their opponents. like shepherds herd sheep.

I want players to be able to herd men based on something I read in John Keegan's 1993 book "A History of Warfare." In discussing why steppe nomads were able to conquer farmer folk again and again, he noted the importance of the skill of herding. Herding attuned the barbarian to be a keen observer of group behavior. It taught the rider how to maneuver groups into killing grounds. The skill at butchering made the shepherds know exactly where to hit to kill and made them immune to fear of seeing blood. This is an exciting insight into the psychology of ancient warfare which I want to capture if at all possible.

So my working parameters for Ritter are as follows: it must be fast (play time no longer than ten minutes), it must be simple so as not to detract from the primary game, it must provide numbers for players to manipulate through the MG, it must be about maneuver, and it must allow players to herd their opponents.

As an ancillary, the game must conform to many of the standards set by commercial games so that time is not wasted explaining new game concepts to the players. Though this point is not a primary design criteria.

EXPERIMENTS

I quickly decided to use the troop types that have become standards in such games as DBA and Armati. So players can use their DBA armies to play Ritter without any remounting of figures. This assures that the game will be playable by a preexisting audience of gamers, since it does not require purchasing new armies before one can even play.

Next I tried out a few dice rolling system. But they lead to a brick wall. The fact of the matter is, that dice rolling/maneuver games are too slow to meet the ten minute limit on battles. A non-maneuver system like SCRUD can meet the time requirement but is then in conflict with being a maneuver game. The other problem with maneuver games is that it is hard to make them very different from the commercial games already out there. The idea of forming groups of stands into units (ala DBA and Armati) is very workable since it does not predetermine how large an army is. I also like the idea of having a preset limit of how many units one can move in a turn (ala Armati, unlike DBA) since that gives the players a vital number they can try to manipulate in the Matrix Game.

I tried to make a chess like game a few years ago that would exemplify the principles of war put down by Sun Tzu (in "The Art of War"). The game failed, but the idea of combining holding, empty and killing forces in a diceless game was planted. So I started thinking about diceless games.

I am not inherently a fan of diceless games. I like rolling dice (any surprise from a many who has spent the last two years working of "Great handfuls of dice"!). Diceless games all seem too much like chess. Then I remembered the original notion behind the DBA combat system. As I recall it was described as a rock/scissor/paper game. Certain troop types killed other troop types automatically. Well not quite automatically since there is a dice roll.

Why not have combats in certain situations be automatic? Think about it. It is combat resolution that slows most games down. But what if the players just had to run down a list of situations. The first one they come to that fits is the combat result. The combat result table would be written in an order of precedence (so that the ones on top would happen before the ones on bottom). The obvious criticism of the above system is that the players know before hand exactly which combats they will win and which they will lose. Which is true.

To help resolve this I came up with two mechanisms. One, the player may only make a set number of attacks a turn (say two) so that one player can not overwhelm his opponent in one turn. The second mechanism is that defenders who are "killed" have the option of retreating one move directly away from the enemy instead. Such unit have routed. They can be rallied but are basically worthless. They clog up the rear echelon. Men who can not retreat (eg are forced back into a neighboring unit, friend or foe, or whose backs are against the wall) die instead.

Having set number of attacks gives the players a second number to manipulate in the MG. While retreating greatly reduces the fatalities of battle and allows players to start herding their enemies rather than killing them on the spot.

The only other part of the experiment is when to end battles. I am using one more number, army break point. This is how many units one can lose in a battle before losing. For campaign games, the number is low (say one to three), while for stand up game it is higher (say four to six). Again another number players can manipulate in the MG.

THE RULES AS OF NOVEMBER 1995

Ritter is a game about fighting battles in the ancient and medieval periods. It is especially focused on the battles conducted by steppe barbarians. It can be played with any DBA or Armati army.

SCALE

I really do not care what base sizes units are played on. I mount my 6mm figures on US pennies (which are 3/4 inch across, roughly 20mm). Infantry moves one stand length a turn, cavalry moves two stand lengths a turn. Light infantry moves one stand length if moving forward or two stand lengths if retreating. Bows can shoot two stand lengths. Thus it is the stand size of the army one is using that determines the scale rather than anything else.

Time scale is even less important to me than ground scale. I am operating off the variable length bound idea. So action moves from critical even to critical event, how ever long apart they are. I do this because I have no idea how long an ancient battle should last. For me, how long it takes to play out is more critical than how long the battle lasted for the soldiers in it.

ARMY STATISTICS

Each army has a certain number of stands in it. It also has a rating for 1. Movement, 2. Killing attacks, and 3 Break point. Movement is how many groupings of figures one can move a turn. Killing attacks is how many winning attacks can one make a turn. It is assumed that all the other soldiers are fighting too, but that their fights are inconclusive. Break point is how many stands one can Lose before losing the battle.

FORMING UNITS

As in DBA and Armati, individual stands are placed next to one another into ad hoc units. Such units move together. They may move forward or backwards, wheel from one flank or march obliquely. The only stricture, I put one it is that all the stands in a unit marching together must be pointed in the same direction. If one curves stands around to form an all around defense then the unit can not march together. Individual stands are units unto themselves. They can pivot in place any number of times and still move.

MOVEMENT

Movement is very liberal in Ritter. I do this because placing very many restrictions on movement requires a very active referee to monitor them. I would prefer to let players handle there own movement and be able to run a game without a referee present. So Ritter soldiers all come from Frederick the Great's school of marching.

Players alternate movement each turn, just like in chess. So first one side moves and att acks, then the other side moves and attacks.

TERRAIN

For the moment I have no terrain rules.

CLOSING TO COMBAT

When stands are within two stands lengths, bows can fire. When stands are in contact with one another close combat occurs. Like in DBA I require horse archers to go into close combat to fight. The number of killing attacks is how many stands can do it in a single turn. Thus if an army has two killing attacks then two of its stands can attack for effect. Not two whole units! What this accomplishes is that combat effects a breakthrough in only a couple places a turn. Armies do not suddenly die due to one round of combat.

The attacking player decides where to make his killing attacks. Clearly he is going to make them in places where he will win. The defender does not get a counter attack. That is done in his next turn.

RESOLVING COMBAT

When two stands are next to one another then a killing attack can be made. Consult the table to see what the outcome is.

I use the following rationales for what is on the table and why: Routers want to continue running so they lose all fights. Flanks are very vulnerable in all periods so any flank attack should win (and in fact be decisive). Solid lines of heavy infantry were invulnerable to the front except in certain circumstances. Concentrated bow fire was one of those circumstances. Roman blades could and did kill Macedonian pikemen frontally. German warbands did kill Roman blades frontally. The Hundred Years War illustrated knight, pikemen and bowmen's special vulnerability to smaller amounts of bow fire. Double ranks of pikemen could not be killed frontally even if overlapped (the lesson of Swiss pikemen). If there are enough of any type of troop to overlap a single stand on both sides. then that stand should be overwhelmed. Cavalry only needs to overlap one side to kill due to their increased mobility. Knights kill all types of infantry if it is a one on one fight, as they did in the Dark Ages. Pikes kill all cavalry, the further lesson of the Swiss. All kinds of cavalry kill light infantry caught in the open by running them down~. But the lights then just run away unless cornered! Light infantry kills all cavalry in rough terrain ala Robin Hood. And finally, generals kill all types in front of them if they have not been previously defeated. Just so that heroic generals could have effect in deadlock situations.

RITTER COMBAT RESOLUTION TABLE

All types kill routers
All types kill in flank attacks
Gunpowder artillery kill all types frontally
All infantry can not be killed frontally if in works
Bow fire with two overlaps kill frontally
Blades kill pikes frontally
Warbands kill blades frontally
Bow fire of a single stand kills knight, pike and bow
Double rank pike can not be killed frontally
All types kill if they overlap the enemy on both sides
Cavalry kills if they overlap the enemy on one side
Knights kill light cavalry in one on one fights
Elephants kill blade, spear, pike and warband frontally
Knights kill infantry and artillery in one on one fights
Pikes kill all cavalry frontally
Psi~loi kill elephants frontally
Cavalry kill all light infantry frontally in the open
Light infantry kill all cavalry frontally in rough
Auxila kill Psiloi frontally
Artillery kill elephants
Generals kill all types frontally
If no other result fits then the fight is a draw

The table is quite simple and after a while one learns it by heart so it does not have to be referred to again. It is important that when looking for the result of a Combat to look down the list. The order it is written in is important. The result is the first entry that fits the situation. For instance, Two stands of knights attack two pike stands formed in double ranks. If the knights hit the flank then the "All types kill on flank attacks" is the result. If they attach frontally, then they lose. They lose because "Double ranks of pike can not be killed frontally" occurs before "Cavalry kills if they overlap one side". In fact the pike unit wins because the first entry that fits the situation is "Pikes kill all cavalry frontally".

RETREATS

If a stand is killed in a fight then it may opt to rout away from the fight one turns move (with the exception of light infantry who move two stands in routs and only one stand in regular movement). A routed unit turns its back to the enemy. The universal sign of cowardness (ie showing ones tail). It is important that routs be made directly away from the enemy because units that can not make a full move without bumping into another unit (be it friend or foe) is destroyed. So bunching troops up too closely is very dangerous. They will have no room to fall back and thus will die in droves. Such crowding is what killed the Romans at Cannae.

Routing select stands out of an enemies formation can wreck their battle plan since it reduces the speed with which they can maneuver.

PURSUIT

If the attacking player wishes, the attacking stand can advance into the space previously occupied by a unit that is destroyed. Or it can make a full move to pursue a stand that has just routed. Pursuits are dangerous if not well considered.

Unfortunately for some generals some troop types must pursue. Knights and warbands have no choice. Their psychology was such that they attacked whatever was directly in front of them and followed it until dead. They tended not to show tactical judgement in what such pursuits did to their battle plan.

RALLIES

For the cost of one movement point, a player can rally one of his routed units. The rallied unit turns around this turn. It can be placed in any direction but may not move. The rally was the move.

REFORMING UNITS

It costs one movement point to join stands that are within one stand of one another into a unit. The unit must maintain basically the same facing the stands previously held. What is happening is they are closing ranks, not practicing for a drum and bugle competition! I am making reforming units very easy to do not because it is historically accurate but because if players are forced to fight historically then they will whine too much. I don't want to deal with such whining so I make it liberal.

OBSERVATIONS FROM PLAYTESTS

So far I've done maybe ten play tests of the game. Most of these were solo games but one was with a fifteen year old in the early stages of schizophrenia. Schizophrenics make wonderful playtesters. Their cognitive functions are fully intake but they come up with the most interesting comments.

The solo tests show that the game works and produces outcomes comparable to what can be gotten from other battle games. Though it is a deterministic game, I do not find it at all predictable. One still has to have a battle plan and try to follow it. The game moves players towards making flank attacks and herding attempts. Men do not die much from initial clashes. Death comes when one's flank has been taken, or one is surrounded, or when one is pressed in too close together.

I use ten stands per army since twenty stands is all that will fit in the little box I took my miniatures to work with. The two armies are the Mongol (ten stands of light cavalry) and Poles (three stands of bowmen, four stands of blade, stands of knights). This pits two very different battle systems off against one another and focuses the test on the herding elements so common in steppe warfare.

At first I had the Poles form and infantry line with the knights behind them (two on one side, one on the other) I believe I saw this in a magazine once. They said it was a battle plan used by the crusaders. Well, it is a losing battle plan. A solid line of Mongols out flanks it and that is all she wrote. Eventually, I tried a checkerboard set up of the men at arms with enough space for everyone to retreat. The bowmen were on one flank and the knights were on the other. The Mongol's line of cavalry easily drove back the blades, but not before the knights were on their flank. In this battle the Mongol plan lost. I was trying for a modified Roman battle plan. The blades in the middle were widely placed to allow my main force to be on the wings. They would slowly fall back under the pressure of the attack and pull the Mongols into the trap.

In the live playtest, I commanded the Mongol and my tester commanded the Poles. He set his men out in units of two stands each in a checker board pattern. I thought I had him. My solid line of cavalry overlapped both his flanks but he pulled his line of battle together before my men could make contact. I did take his flank and destroy half his army but he did not concede defeat. Instead the game turned into a pursuit.

At the beginning of the pursuit, I rushed in to smash the last of his knights between a hammer and anvil~(two of my units on either side of him). This worked, but he counter attacked one of my stands and forced it to rout into my other stand! My men were killed because of the way I had set up the attack. He spaced his men out so they all had plenty of space and began moving for the edge of the board. I began to circle his men in a formation of individual detached stands. It looked a lot like the way wolves encircle elk. I was trying to separate one of his men from the relative safety of the others. Slowly I was able to whittle his down, but not before losing more stands than I ever should have.

My play tester said that he enjoyed the planning and analysis that went into playing the game. He also said he would like to have a dice roll so that the little guys would have a chance to win a fight. (I told him to try DBA). I am certain that he will want to play again.

A game lasts about half an hour if one plays it down to the last man. If the break point is set at two or three then the games do get done in the ten minute time frame I require.

All in all I feel that Ritter will work out well as a MG supplemental game. I think it also could be a good demo game to run at a booth at a game con.

HOW IS IT AS A PURSUIT GAME?

I really did not intend Ritter to be a pursuit game, but it appears to function well as one. Due to the ease of retreats, and the quickness of combat, battles are not settled in the first clash of arms. The player's battle plans quickly break down. Then it becomes a question of who can regroup quickest. The loser tends to lose big, but a rash pursuit can cost the winner as well.

I think it is worth while to continue playtests of the game to explore how it is in pursuit. I'm also thinking that a variant of this game could work for battalion level WWI games. I invite you to comment on the game.