At HISTORICON, I picked up a set of renaissance rules written by Todd Fisher, he who runs the EMPEROR'S HEADQUARTERS in Chicago. The Fisher empire has been expanding over the past few years... he's got dibs on several figure lines, and publishes all of the Bowden rules plus a number of other rules sets. 'REVENGE' is the title of the Fisher renaissance effort, published by the EMPEROR'S PRESS in 1992. And, in truth, as a publication, it's very well done. The booklet of some 71 pages is about 8 1/2 x 11 in size, spirally bound, and profusely illustrated with old line drawings of knights and battle scenes, and appropriate quotes (in Gothic script) from Froissart and others. We evaluated REVENGE in our usual fashion. I divided my ping-pong table in two, and on one half, we ran through the REVENGE rules; on the other half, using identical forces, we used my own set of rules. What better control, what better reference could there be than my own home-grown, rough-hewn, yet wonderfully historical and realistic effort? For ease of reference in this article, let's denote the Simon rules by the acronym AAA, since that's the rating they received from the prestigious Centre For Provocative Wargaming Analysis for the Centre's 1995 prize for 'Accuracy In Wargaming'. In our test setup, we'd first play a turn of the REVENGE rules on Table #1, then we'd go to Table #2 and play a turn of AAA. Then back to Table #1, and so on. In this manner, it was possible to track the progress of the battles and compare the results. Dividing the table in half produces two similar, not-too-large engagements, permitting the focus to be maintained on the rules procedures themselves, rather than on the nitty-gritty maneuvering of large forces on the field. We started on Table #1. REVENGE states that all units within 12 inches of their leader are 'in command', which means that they can move forward, change formation, etc., etc. But, 'in command' or not, all units must also test for 'control' if they are within 24 inches of the enemy. If a unit is 'out of control' it must move toward the enemy or charge, etc. Percentage dice are used for the control test. Each class of unit is given a base percentage, which is modified by one or several of 19 factors. The basic percentages are so high when modified (in some cases over 100 percent; see chart on next page), that it's extremely difficult for a unit to get 'out of control', i.e., toss percentage dice above the modified base, and we came to the conclusion that the control test was a waste of time. REVENGE gives base percentages for two types of test: Class of Unit Control Test Morale Test Fanatic Noble Crack Elite Veteran Militia 65 65 110 105 95 95 115 105 105 95 85 70 A Morale test is necessary to see if a unit charges, to see if the charged unit holds, if a friendly unit is destroyed, etc. Here, there are 27 possible modifiers to add to, or subtract from, the above percentage. There's another test, called the Disruption test, used when a unit is shot at, or 'moves through an obstacle'. This uses a 6-sided die, potentially modified by 12 factors. And there's another test, called the Melee Morale test, also using 6-sided dice, different from the above Morale test, which units must take after every round of melee. Here, we've got 25 possible modifiers. The Todd Fisher REVENGE concept seems to follow that of Scotty Bowden1s: if it can be charted, chart it, and make sure there's an attached hellacious list of modifiers to purportedly provide historical accuracy. REVENGE has some 10 or 11 charts, each with its own listing of modifiers. For example, the missile firing chart has 33 possible factors, the melee chart has 25 possible modifiers, and these, together with the ones I mentioned above, make for very slow going. Battles In our battles, on both tables, the bulk of the forces started out about 30 inches apart. For the first turn, on Table #1, the REVENGE table, nothing happened; the infantry advanced at about 5 inches per turn, and the cavalry at 9 inches. on the second turn, my advance units came within crossbow range (15 inches) of the enemy. Here, we consulted the REVENGE missile combat tables. REVENGE classifies mounted troops into 6 grades of armor, and foot troops into 5 grades. If a unit is hit, there are 7 steps to determine the impact on the target: a. We first went to the Armor Class chart. My unit was Armor Class 3, which, when cross-indexed with the firing weapon (crossbow), gave a Base Number of 5. b. Then we ran down the list of firing modifiers, 33 in number, lots of "+1's", and "+2's", and so on. We got "+1", for 'target in close order', and "-1" for 'target moved', and "+2" for 'firing unit stationary', and finally totaled "+2". c. The +2 is applied to the Base Number of 5, giving a modified Base Number of 7. d. Then we went to the Missile Combat Result table, and found that for a modified Base Number of 7, each firing figure (there were 12 of them) has a 7% chance of hitting, giving a total percentage of 7 x 12, or 84% chance of a hit. e. Percentage, dice were thrown, and my unit took one casualty. f. Having been hit, my unit took a Disruption test. I rolled a 6-sided die; the result gave a Disruption base of 3. We then went through the disruption factor listing (12 potential modifiers), and came up with a sole modifier, +2, for "each casualty caused by missile combat". g. Adding the base of 3 to the +2 factor, the net was 5, and we referred to the Disruption table and found out that 5 produced "no effect", i.e., my unit wasn't disrupted. I noted on the Missile Combat Result table (see Step d. above), that as the modified Base Number increased, the probability-of-hit for each firing figure also increased. For example, with a modified Base Number of 12, the chance per figure was 14%; with a modified Base Number of 18, the chance per figure went up to 40%, and so on. The table itself looked rather arbitrary... there was no obvious relationship between the Base Number and probability-of-hit-per-figure (except, of course, that as one increased, so did the other). All the above took place on Turn 2 on Table #1, with all units still some 15 inches apart. On this same turn, with the AAA rules on Table #2, we also had some firing and, because of the different movement rates, we had a melee between two units of mounted knights. Under the AAA firing procedures on Table #2, we did the following: a. All firing units start out with four 10-sided Hit Dice (HD); they will hit the target on tosses of 1,2,3,4. b. Here, the target was an armored unit of foot knights hence, because the firing weapons were bows, we took one HD away as a protective factor, leaving 3. The HD were tossed and one hit was scored on the target unit. c. The target unit took a morale test. It started with a Base Morale Level of 85, and deducted the distance to the Wing Commander, some 8 inches, giving a net of 85 - 8, or 77 percent. d. Percentage dice were tossed and the result was less than 77; the unit held its position. AAA gives mounted troops a movement distance of 6 inches "per action". Each turn, a side gets either 2, 3, or 4 actions for each of its units. Thus the mounted units (depending upon their actions) can go 12, 18, or 24 inches per turn, contrasted with REVENGE's constant 9 inch movement distance for horse. This was the reason that, for AAA, we had a contact on Turn #2 between the mounted knights. AAA permits each side in melee to bring in one supporting unit. The percentage chance of doing so starts out around 80, and is reduced by (a) the distance of the nearest wing commander to the melee, and (b) the distance to the melee of the unit called upon to support. In any case, I. had no units to draw on for support, since none of my units were deployed... they were all still in column of march. I had been caught flatfooted. The opposition, however, called on a unit of deployed foot knights. The foot knights were some 7 inches away from the mounted knights in melee, and the wing commander was about 12 inches away. This total of 7 + 12, or 19, was subtracted from the base of 80, giving a net of 61%, i.e., the foot knights had a 61 percent chance of running 7 inches across the field to assist. Percentage dice were thrown, the toss was below 61, and the foot knights successfully joined in. This resulted in two units against my one. In AAA, as in most of my rules, the firing procedures closely track the melee procedures. Which means that, as in firing, each unit starts out with 4 Hit Dice (HD), and tosses of 1,2,3,4 are hits. Instead of adjusting the required die tosses of 1,2,3,4 by "+1" for this, and "+2" for that, all melee and firing modifiers are simply given in terms of whole HD. Thus a unit picks up additional HD for any advantages it might have, and loses HD for its disadvantages. Here, each unit of mounted knights picked up 2 additional HD per stand, while the foot knights picked up 1 additional HD per stand. The result was that I tossed a total of 10 HD while the opposition tossed 17 HD. 'Twas no surprise that my mounted knights suffered about 6 hits, and withdrew, having lost the combat. Now we were at Turn #3 on the REVENGE table. More firing, another hit, another disruption test, more listings of modifiers. None of the units were in charge range. REVENGE gives a bonus move to charging units. Close-order cavalry, for example, get to move an additional "( (2 x 6-sided die) - 2 )" inches. The rules indicate that, if a charge "falls short" of contact, the unit picks up one Fatigue Point (FP) . FP count against you in disruption tests, in melee, etc. On Turn #3 on Table #2, again, because of the larger movement rates, there were all sorts of contacts. on my side, a unit of foot knights lost and fell back, while my mounted knights won. Of interest in these AAA combats was the fact that neither side brought in any support units. The reason was that both sides had been accumulating casualty markers on its units. In melee, a side picks up one Hit Die for every casualty marker on any of the opposing units. Which meant that if we brought in support units which had already accumulated hit markers on them, we'd be giving additional dice to the opposition. In effect, both sides were rapidly becoming exhausted. Turn #4 on Table #1, the REVENGE table. Still no contact, but more firing. And, on Table #2, lots of heavy in-fighting. Turn #5 on Table #1. Egad! At last, the units were in charge range! Three simultaneous melees occurred, as the units suddenly came to life. For each melee, we did the following: a. A "Willing To Charge" morale check on the charging unit. b. A "Fear Of Charge" morale check on the target unit. c. Determination of casualties for a first round of melee, termed the Impact Round. d. An end-of-round "Melee Morale" check by both sides. e. Casualties for a second round of melee. f. An end-of-round "Melee Morale" check by both sides. Melee continues from turn to turn until one unit breaks off due to the end-of-round "Melee Morale" check. In melee, there is an extensive chart of Weapon Type versus Armor Class, which gives a Base Number for each side. Then there's a list over 20 modifiers potentially applied to the Base Number. Half of the modifiers apply only to the first round, the Impact round. The modified Base Number is then referred to another chart, the Melee Result table, which. gives a probability-of -hit per figure in melee. When the enemy mounted knights (Armor Class 5 with heavy lances) charged into my Men At Arms (Armor Class 3), the resulting initial Base Number for the knights was 9, and we added another 8 points from the modifiers, giving a total modified Base Number of 17. The resulting probability-of-hit from the Melee Result table for each knight turned out to be 78%, and since there were 12 knights in the unit, 12 x 78 gave a total hit percentage of 936%, indicating 9 casualties plus 36% chance of another. In contrast, the Men At Arms received an initial Base Number of 3, and modified this by -1 on the Eliteness Modifier table (since the knights were of Elite Class, and the Men At Arms were of Veteran Class). The resulting modified Base Number of 2, on the Melee Result table, gave each Man At Arms a probability-of-hit of 3% per man. The 12 Men At Arms thus had a 12 x 3, or 36% chance of killing one knight. The Melee Result table lists, for each modified Base Number, a probability-of-hit-per-man. Typical values are Modified Base Number Prob-of-Hit Per Man 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 3 5 13 27 43 64 85 There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in the content of the table; it appears as if the author sat down at breakfast one morning, and simply listed a bunch of increasing values. As I mentioned before, the modified Base Number listing for the firing results follows a similar pattern. Which brings to mind the question... why go the trouble of creating a huge series of arbitrary charts and arbitrary modifiers and arbitrary multipliers, and make life difficult for the player, when the same arbitrary results can be obtained in much simpler fashion? At the end of Turn #5, none of us at table-side were too eager to continue with the REVENGE scenario. It appeared as if the author had applied too many layers, too many procedures, too many modifiers and listings, all in the name of historical accuracy. Does anyone want to purchase a used copy of REVENGE? Back to PW Review September 1995 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 Wally Simon 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