Representing the arquebus . . .

[stockwellpete]

I think this is one of the biggest problems associated with writing Renaissance scenarios at the moment. We have handgunners but their effectiveness is very limited. Arquebuses were far more lethal so how can we represent that in our work given what we have in the scenario editor?I may have found a way of improving their representation somewhat. What if arquebusiers are represented by using the handgunner units that are then edited to "medium foot", "impact foot" and maybe even "swordsmen" too?

I have just run a short experiment with those three changes in place . . .

In open terrain where both the arquebusiers and enemy pike formations were classed as "average" the pike formation smashed through the arquebusiers and lost no units, destroying all six arquebusier units. On impact, standard melee odds were 36/36 and first round of melee odds were 9/74 against the arquebusiers (where both units were "steady"). So arquebusiers in the open against pikes get steamrollered, which is what you might expect.

But in rough terrain, it was a different story. The arquebusiers repulsed the pike formation, losing only one unit and destroying all six pike units. On impact, standard melee odds were 12/66 in favour of the arquebusiers and first round of melee odds were 50/23 in favour of the arquebusiers (where both units were "steady"). So arquebusiers in broken ground are a very different proposition indeed, which is quite interesting for us scenario-builders, I think.

There is an issue of whether arquebusiers should really be classed as swordsmen though. I will have to research that a bit more today and post about it again - but the main point here is that I have used the "impact foot" classification to boost the firepower lethality of the handgunner unit so that it is nearer to that of the arquebus. I am not suggesting it is perfect but I think it might be a bit better.

There are two other considerations for scenario-builders with this idea . . .
i) there are now three ways of representing arquebusiers in the game; firstly as light foot (LF) because arquebusiers were sometimes deployed as skirmishers; secondly as medium foot (MF), edited in the ways I am suggesting above, to represent larger formations of arquebusiers; and thirdly it is possible to represent them in pike formations by entering "firearms" in the "ranged weapons" box. I do think that it would be preferable not to have the LF and MF representations in the same scenario - but it is possible to point this out in the scenario notes if you feel you need to use both types of unit (also, if you put LF and MF in brackets at the end of the unit name it helps new players of the scenario to differentiate between the different types of unit.
ii) I think it means that scenario designers have to increase the number of "scrub" or "broken ground" hexes in their Renaissance scenarios otherwise arquebusiers will be fairly limited in where they can go. Instead of having wide open expanses of clear terrain it might be better to break those up a bit with the two terrain types I have just mentioned.

I would be interested to hear other views.

[stockwellpete]

Giving swords to arquebusiers as a secondary weapon seems to be generally OK from what I have just been looking at.

[stockwellpete]

Experiments are under way. First of all a setback . . . with the arquebusiers set at MF impact foot they "anarchy" charge too often even if set as "drilled" and while they are in command radius. So the MF designation is not going to work, I think. However, I then changed them to LF impact foot and some very interesting possibilities have opened up with the evade settings - so that is what is being investigated now. More later.

[stockwellpete]

Updated with arquebusiers as "light foot, impact foot". The evade settings you choose for your arquebusiers are key here . . .

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 20PWv1.zip

[stockwellpete]

Making arquebusiers "LF, impact foot" definitely worked in yesterday's play tests. Caught in the open they will evade if they are set to "always evade" and the middle setting ("AI evade" is it?) but in rough terrain they will hold against pikes if they are set to "never evade". This makes the battles very interesting and they have a slightly different feel from the medieval melees. Of course, arquebusiers can still be included in the pike formations by entering "firearms" in the ranged weapons space. I am currently testing whether arquebusiers set as "superior MF" have any prospects in the game. My thanks to Turk1964 for help with the play-testing.

[deeter]

MF won't anarchy charge if they aren't impact foot. Maybe, make them LS, Swords.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

MF won't anarchy charge if they aren't impact foot. Maybe, make them LS, Swords.

Deeter

Yes - they are LF, impact foot, drilled, firearms and swords.

[Turk1964]

Yes making the Arquebusiers LF impact foot was a definite success and makes them a worthwhile unit to deploy.Having Arquebusiers in the pike formations gives them a chance to disrupt other pike before charging in. This i feel is a very realistic representation and should be used in scenarios where the mixed unit is allowed.

Cheers Turk

[stockwellpete]

I have just noticed that the image for the unit "medieval-LF-firearm-c" is, in fact, an arquebusier - as he is aiming his weapon from the shoulder. The images for "a" and "b" are handgunners. So we do already have some artwork for arquebusiers in the game!

[ZeaBed]

I have just noticed that the image for the unit "medieval-LF-firearm-c" is, in fact, an arquebusier - as he is aiming his weapon from the shoulder. The images for "a" and "b" are handgunners. So we do already have some artwork for arquebusiers in the game!

This is great news, Pete! You and Turk1964 have done great yeoman work for us.

[stockwellpete]

Another little thing you can do with arquebusiers is that when it is raining in the scenario you are making you can remove the "impact foot" setting to reduce the effectiveness of the weapon (e.g. at Fornovo 1495).

[stockwellpete]

Dan, I would be interested in your comments on this issue when you have time.

I don't know whether there is any intention to release further "Battlepack" collections but if there is then a number of us have written what might be termed "early Renaissance" scenarios that might make for an interesting collection. One thing that would really enhance them would be the provision of the early arquebus. Now, I know there is a big problem about new artwork at the moment but we do actually have arquebusier artwork in the game although it is being used for handgunners. If you look at the "medieval LF firearm C" image you will see that the soldiers are aiming the weapons from their shoulder rather than pointing them from their waist lines (as handgunners would do).

So would it be possible sometime next year for you to create a new category of "arquebusier" unit? They would usually be "average LF, protected with swords" but the main difference would be the casualties they could inflict would be much higher than the handgun. We would need the option of "poor" arquebusiers too for wet conditions in scenarios. The other element to develop is that we can already add "firearms" capability to our standard pike units - but really we need to be able to add the more lethal "arquebusiers" to them to create an early Renaissance mixed unit. Obviously the unit image would just show pikemen but players don't seem to mind about that when playing my scenarios that have mixed pike units.

What would you say?

[cothyso]

I had a quick look. adding a new unit type is not something requiring too much time, a few days or so. Problem is that this new unit has to be covered in all the gameplay rules it needs to appear, and the modifications need to fit and be integrated into everything else (requiring participation or at least input from Richard as TT rules creator).

Anyway, the most important aspect is that we have to have a game first, I hope all of you agree. Let us have the base game finished and ready, get used with al the newly added modification and improvements (which are also including the gameplay & rules, not only the interface), then we'll start talking about modifications and new additions.

on my waiting list the top is already full with double BGs (BGs occupying two hexes), dynamic map generator, reinforcements, more than 2 player games, a basic campaign system, basic scenario triggers and AI (which I want to be a continuous work in progrss during the life of this project). as you can see, there are plenty of things to add and talk about

[stockwellpete]

Yes OK, thanks. I was only really flagging this up to see what your initial reaction would be - I realise that it is not something that decisions can be made about now. And I was really only thinking of it as something that might be made available in the scenario editor - I wasn't suggesting that it should necessarily be included in the DAG as well. I have done 16 "early Renaissance" scenarios ranging from the Italian Wars (1490s onwards) through to the Nine Years War in Ireland (ending 1601) that would all benefit from the early arquebus. There are a few other 16thC scenarios written by other people too (e.g. Zeabed's Panipat 1526). Battlepack No 1 had 24 scenarios included so we are not too far off having enough scenarios for a separate early Renaissance Battlepack should the "powers that be" think it desirable.

[TheGrayMouser]

I had a quick look. adding a new unit type is not something requiring too much time, a few days or so. Problem is that this new unit has to be covered in all the gameplay rules it needs to appear, and the modifications need to fit and be integrated into everything else (requiring participation or at least input from Richard as TT rules creator).

Anyway, the most important aspect is that we have to have a game first, I hope all of you agree. Let us have the base game finished and ready, get used with al the newly added modification and improvements (which are also including the gameplay & rules, not only the interface), then we'll start talking about modifications and new additions.

on my waiting list the top is already full with double BGs (BGs occupying two hexes), dynamic map generator, reinforcements, more than 2 player games, a basic campaign system, basic scenario triggers and AI (which I want to be a continuous work in progrss during the life of this project). as you can see, there are plenty of things to add and talk about

Dan, perhaps the easiest thing to do is change the firearm mechanic so its the same as other missile weapons when not attached to light foot. Currently, if you give a firearm to medium or heavy troops (or as rear rank ), it uses the firearm POA but does NOT: A) give the -1 cohesion modifier that fire arms have when on light foot or light/normal cavalry, B) it does not give the xtra two missile dice when charged in impact.
Perhaps if this was tweaked it would help those scenarios for later periods. Also, nothing would need to be tested extensively as such units don't exist in any DAG lists etc. Basically just tweak the weapon class so it behaves like say crossbows expect of course the range and the -1 cohesion modifier would remain.
Then, if you can find time make a true arquebus weapon (same as firearm but perhaps 4 hex range?)
Cheers!