It's back to the Dice on the DB rules. I had been playing a lot of D.B.R. when it first came out and had come to the conclusion that Lancers (among others) were grossly over cost points wise. It seem that any variety of pistolleer could calmly sit on his horse blowing the smoke off the barrel of his wheellock, having no concern except as to the number of notches he'd have to carve subsequent to any engagement with the pigstickers.

So I decided to graph out the combat results table of PIs Vs. LNs. My goal being to show the world the unfairness of it all and surprise, surprise, Lancers prove to be a statistically good deal (to bad my dice won't follow a statistical norm).

The biggest problem seems to be that in the first bound of contact the lancers might beat the pistols to badly crashing through the line and winding up in nether places where a lack of pips might keep them out of the fight. Sad fact is under the rules a lancer overlapping a pistol on either side of him is far more useful than a lancer charging a pistol in the rear who is engaged to the front by yet another lancer.

So now that I've proved to myself that lancers might not be over costed (Tactical and strategic blundering being an impossibility). My other issue was Shot. My first impression (and possibly last) is that the shot in DBR Have been made the way they are merely so that they won't be identical to bows. The impression that I have got for years is that the reason shot superseded bow in armies had more to do with the ability to inexpensively arm a bunch, malnourished, untrained, gutterscum and serfs in large numbers rather than any inherent superiority of the weapon for any purpose.

My thought is that Shot should be worse and cheaper than bow as opposed to the reverse. For that maner I've never quite understood the rational for the level of inferiority of the performance of bows against foot in either of the DB's. Maybe a 3 v foot and a 4 v mounted for bows with a 3 across the board for shot. Pre bayonet or unsupported fire sticks should die like flys like the bows do when recoiled by mounted. Maybe shot should be subdivided in to two categories Arquebus/Caliver Range 100 paces at one point less per element than bow and using the same combat results as bow. Just because a guy is toting a weapon that is either low velocity or smaller caliber doesn't mean should carry all the baggage that goes with being inferior. The other category could be Musket Range 200 paces using the current Shot combat results and costing the same as bow.

Then of course there are blades I really can't see why a guy with a halberd is more likely to take one in the belly when shot at, than a guy with a pike. If anything it seems the reverse should be true the blades often being in looser formations thereby less likely to be victims of the braille school of marksmanship. Again I think it comes back to, it takes less physical prowess and training to pull a trigger than swing a sword (effectively) The shot should die on a recoil all the time not just every other bound.

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