French Wars of Religion Rules Playtest

The Rejects gathered in Stuart's shed of war to kindly playtest the rules that I have written for my 2mm French Wars of Religion armies.

The table top set up was plain and relatively sparse, with just a big wood in middle of the Catholic line.  This was to test the movement aspect of the rules.

Lee, David and Ray played the Catholic League. Whilst Stuart and Surjit took control of the Huguenot forces.

You may want to pop across to see the reports from Lee and Ray.

The opening deployment can be seen below.  The League are on the left.  The Huguenots on the right.

The Catholic army consisted of 2 old band regiments, Swiss pike and 3 gens d'armes units in the rearward (closest to the camera).  Two French pike and shot, Swiss pike, artillery and three gens d'armes units in the main battle.  In the vaward battle, on the far flank, were 4 gens d'armes and one stradiot.

The Huguenot army was arrayed with landsknecht, artillery and pike in the centre. Cavalry and reiters on both flanks interspersed with arquebusiers.

The game is influenced by cards that serve two purposes.  As a numeric value to be used to bid for control of charge and move initiative, and as events that can influence the battle. The cards can be used for one or the other, but not both.  So, the opposing commanders are continually having to make decisions about how best to shape the engagement - through manoeuvre, initiative or specific actions.

Here are examples of a couple of the cards.

  

I have tried to reflect in the cards things that actually happened before or during battles in this period.  Players can each play a maximum of one card as an action/event per turn.

The number in the top right is the value that could be used to bid for moving and charging first.  Each side can use a maximum of three cards for bidding purposes.  Cards have different values.

The opposing lines move towards each other.

Both sides advanced.  Winning movement initiative is no guarantee of being able to move all of ones units.  David, in the centre of the Catholic line, being less successful than Ray or Lee.

Having just cautioned his fellow Leaguers to advance in line, Ray then suffered a rush of blood to the head and engaged in a fireworks display of charges on the far flank.  Meanwhile, Lee kept an ordered approach towards the Huguenot line.

My understanding is that pike blocks, all formations in fact, relied on maintaining their cohesion.  Certainly accounts that I have read place emphasis on the disastrous effects when cohesion is lost.  Complicated evolutions about the battlefield was difficult, if not dangerous.  To reflect this, movement is limited to straight ahead with one facing change or wheel allowed. However a check is required, when changing face or wheeling, to see if the unit's cohesion has been degraded.

Ray and Surjit engaged in a number of cavalry melees on the far flank.  With the situation becoming increasingly confused, the Huguenot horsemen were nonetheless gaining a slight advantage as Ray's gens d'armes were either dispersed or their morale undermined.

Melee in the game is essentially a case of both sides roll 1d6 and add their unit's quality, cohesion and any relevant modifiers.  The higher score wins.  In my head I want the chance element to be important, but not for it to turn into a situation of the dice alone determines the victor.  The modifiers are really to allow for those period aspects that (at this "grand tactical" level) a unit's quality and cohesion ratings cannot reflect.  For example, charging cavalry frontally at pike units is not a good idea even if they have similar ratings.

I have to confess, melee is an area that has taken more thought and reflection than other mechanics.

By this point in the game, Lee was engaging with Stuart's enfants perdus and reiters on the near flank.

It was also by this point that much had been tested and learned.  So we called it a day and declared a Huguenot victory.  Not that that really mattered for the purpose of the day.

Conclusions

• I was really pleased with how the cards and turn sequence played out.  The players were kept busy making decisions about their priorities.  The event cards added nicely to the period flavour of the game.  Meanwhile, the turn sequence ensured period tactics were rewarded.
• The melee mechanics worked in a general sense.  However, play allowed some reflection on how modifiers should be applied.  I have already been hard at work on the maths and history to make the appropriate amendments.
• The movement, manoeuvre and cohesion mechanics worked well.  Though I felt that the lines would probably be maintained better for longer.  So, one change I am considering is allowing both sides to move all units until either the first shot is fired or when once within cannon range of the opposition.  Hopefully, this might also reflect the historical battles when the engagement only started when one side opened up with artillery.
• I want to have a system of army checks to determine the winner.  I still need to firm something up here.  Preferably a mechanic/system that the players record - with coins, token or some such - and takes the burden off the umpire... me!  I tried something, but completely lost track as the game progressed.

I will probably need to reflect on more.  But this will do for the moment until after the next playtest.

My sincere thanks to my fellow Rejects for playing through these rules.  I greatly appreciated their observations and wise advice.