Tuesday 18 October 2022

In Deo Veritas : battle of 'Kirchendorf'

 A couple of posts ago I set out the likely forces and terrain for a Thirty Years' War battle, trying out Philip Garton's In Deo Veritas rules and using my 70s/80s vintage 15mm figures.  This week I played out the game, and there follows a sort of battle report, and some reflections on the rules. 

So, the inital setup:  having discovered the 'selfie screen' on my camera allows a birds-eye view of the battlefield,  here are the armies in their starting positions. The French are in the  North ( top ), Imperialists to the South.

Let battle commence...

A quick review of the armies in keeping with the period, the units in each army are grouped into 'Wings' - in this case each has left and right wings of  Cavalry, and left and right wings of  Infantry. 

The French have 4 brigades (each of 6 figures)  of cavalry on each wing. Their left wing of infantry has 2 brigades (each of 16 figures) of foot, plus 3 companies (each 3 figures)  of detached musketeers in the woods, and their right wing infantry has 3 brigades of foot and a battery of field artillery.  This gives a  total of 14  brigades plus artillery. All units are designated 'Trained',  except the commanded musketeers who are 'Veteran' and one of the right-wing foot brigades is 'Raw'. 

The Imperialists have 5 brigades of cavalry and one company of dragoons on each wing,  Their left wing of foot has 3 infantry brigades and one battery of field artillery, and the right wing of foot has 2 brigades of infantry and one battery, plus 3 companies of detached musketeers in the woods.   Hence a total of 16 brigades plus the dragoons and guns.  All units are 'Trained' except the dragoons and the commanded musketeers, who are 'Raw'. 

Now the kicker - although the French have a slightly weaker force, the scenario ( actually the ECW Battle of Cheriton, 1644 ) specifies that the objective for both sides is 'To control the road off the table to the South'  So the French ( playing the part of the Royalists ) simply must attack, attack, attack!  They are going to have to do very well to win - but at least it gives a strong incentive to 'get stuck in', and should result in a proper scrap. 

 The rules specify that for each turn,first  each 'Wing' is given an order, which can be 'Hold', 'Attack' or 'Withdraw'.  Then the wings are moved one at a time, and this is determined by a card draw, where each wing has a card - I used 8 cards from a normal pack of playing cards, each card representing one cavalry or infantry wing. So there is no 'player turn', rather the various wings of both sides move in a random sequence decided by the card draw. Once all moves have been made, the resulting combats are resolved - shooting first, then melees - with the order of resolving combats decided by the winner of a die roll between the players. I liked this method, as the random sequence of moving brigades injects some nice uncertainty - will my cavalry wing be able to extend its front before the opposing cavalry can charge? 

Given the scenario objectives, the French pretty much had to issue 'Attack' orders to all wings from the start, while the Imperialists could simply order 'Hold',  but the Imperial Commander gave his left wing of cavalry 'Attack' orders, sending them forward to meet their French opposite numbers. Thus on turn 1, battle was joined as the opposing cavalry met on the West side of the field.  

French(top) suffer congestion on the right; opposing cavalry engage on the left 
 

The combat system is relatively simple - for each melee combat  'player 1'  rolls a number of 'to hit' dice for his unit ( a cavalry brigade gets 3 dice, for example ) - advantage or disavantage factors cause the number of dice to be increased or reduced - and 4,5 or 6 is a 'hit'.  Then the opposing unit rolls 'to save' dice ( a cavalry brigade gets 2 saving dice ) , with modifiers again affecting the number of dice rolled, and a 'save' requiring a 4,5 or 6.  Subtract any 'saves'  from the 'hits' suffered - and then in turn  'player 2' rolls his 'to hit' dice for his unit, and 'player 1' rolls 'saves'.   The final numbers of hits on each unit are compared, and the result of the combat depends on the difference between them.  Equal hits means 'stand-off' and the melee continues; a difference of one hit causes 'Recoil' with the loser forced back,  a difference of two causes 'Rout', and three or more is 'Destruction' of the losing unit.   There is no recording of casualties - rather the level of disorder of each unit determines their fate, going from 'Sound' to 'Disordered', Disrupted', 'Routed' and finally 'Destroyed'. I used my trusty 1p and 2p coins placed next to units to show disorder levels ( 1p = 'Disordered', 2p = 'Disrupted' etc ).  Shooting uses a similar method of 'to hit' and 'to save' dice, indeed using the same charts of modifiers, with the 'hits minus saves' result potentially causing different levels of disorder in the target.

In this opening cavalry fight, 2 brigades of Imperial Harquebusiers met 2 brigades of French horse, and the dice favoured the Imperials. On the first fight the Imperial 'Blue' brigade scored 2 hits and the French 'Conde' brigade 1 hit, resulting in Conde having to recoil - in the second fight the Imperialist 'Red' brigade scored 1 hit to the French 'Turenne' brigade's none, and Turenne were forced to recoil. So, an early setback for the French cavalry.  I learned quickly that I needed to leave a decent space between the lines of units in each wing - if a unit is forced to 'Recoil' and contacts its comrades behind, they too suffer an increase in disorder.  That seems entirely right for the period - indeed for any grouping of units in multiple supporting  lines, in any period ( It makes the characterisitc 'chequer board' formation of infantry brigades in 30YW armies entirely sensible - a good example of rules making the players use correct period tactics ).

On turn 2, that cavalry melee continued, with the French die-rolling improving and achieving 'stand-off' results, while the rest of the French army simply advanced, their infantry incoming into range of the Imperial artillery, who concentrated fire on the leading red-coated brigade in the French Right wing, and 'Disrupted' it - good shooting. 

Turn 3, the French were now suffering a bit of congestion, as the available space narrowed - their left-hand infantry had to close up to allow the left wing cavalry to expand  their first line to a two-brigade frontage.  The Imperial right wing of cavalry could have taken advantage of this to sweep forward in a massed charge - but their orders were to 'Hold' -  'Scheisse', muttered their commander 

On the other flank, the Imperial cavalry did better - in the  continuing  melee, the Conde brigade suffered 2 hits to nil, gained two levels of Disorder,  and were the first unit to be Routed, while Turenne was again 'Recoiled'. When a brigade is Routed, its parent Wing must test for Fatigue, and the French right wing cavalry failed this test and became 'Fatigued', which meaning it must be issued 'Hold' or 'Withdraw' orders - so the French Right wing attack was stalled.  

But the French must press on - on Turn Four, their right wing Infantry charged, reaching the Imperial guns. However,  with the Imperialist cavalry having the advantage on that flank, a brigade of  black-armoured Cuirassiers from their second line were able to turn and attack the French right wing's 'Bleu' infantry brigade ( a 'Raw' unit )  in the flank. Meanwhile on the other side of the field,  French left and Imperial right wing cavalry met, the Imperials having remembered to order 'Attack' this time! So there was combat nearly all along the lines - good stuff! Or so I thought, but the Dice Gods disagreed with me - after a lot of 'to hit' and 'save' rolls, every single melee combat was inconclusive,  with even the Raw infantry brigade attacked in the flank managing to hold on.  I guess it just happens sometimes - once close combat is joined, it can be a slow grinding, attritional business. 

The French infantry attack stalled rather  -  the rules specified that the attacking infantry moved to 'close range' and exchanged fire with the defending guns before charging home, but the concentrated fire of both Imperial batteries told, the attacking infantry were 'Disrupted', and thus when they reached the guns, their melee rolls were ineffective. The guns only suffered  a lesser 'Disorder' result from French musketry.Hardly a smashing impact on the Imperial centre. 

Turn 4: contact all along the line. Centre-left French Bluecoats flanked by Cuirassiers! 


 Turn 5 - on the Imperial left, the cavalry melee continued, with the French 2nd line ( of mercenary 'English' horse now facing  the victorious Imperial Harquebusiers. The French infantry wings continued their attack - the left wing of foot now contacted their  opposing Imperial Guns, while the right wing foot tried to press forward while also dealing with cuirassiers on the their flanks ( the Red-coated brigade which had been Disrupted by the early artillery fire gamely charged against the black cuirassiers ). On the Imperial right, those brigades of horse already in contact continued fighting, while both sides tried to extend their frontage to the East,  by wheeling out units from their 2nd lines.

Now for shooting - and what shooting. The lone  Imperialist dragoon company on their left wing having swung inwards, gave a volley into the flank of the leading French 'Redcoat' foot, and scored 2 hits - and there were no saves. Two hits on an already Disrupted unit - the Redcoats broke and fled, 'Routed'. What's more, they crashed through the frst-line Green-coated brigade to their right - inflicting 'Disorder'. That would not help the Greencoats' melee rolls, though to their credit, their musketry drove off the gunners in front of them with a 'Disrupted and Recoil'  result - 3 hits! All the same, those plucky dragoons had inflicted complete chaos to the French infantry attack. 

Melee - the Imperial right-wing Harquebusiers were not to be denied - both 'English' horse brigades were forced to recoil and Disrupted, their entire wing now being in a parlous state.  The black Cuirassiers fighting both red- and blue-coated French foot dealt a smashing blow - 2 hits to none on the redcoats, who promptly routed but also faced a further Disorder test, and failed, resulting in their destruction.  To make matters yet worse, on the Imperial right the French Chevaux Legers were forced to recoil in melee by Imperial 'Green' cuirassiers, and they recoiled straight into the other Red-coated French foot which had been routed by Dragoon fire. It was all too much for those redcoats, the extra level of disorder inflicted causing them to disintegrate. Disaster!   The French right wing of foot now had only one brigade in fighting condition, and that brigade was being attacked in flank by cavalry. It was the French commander's turn to mutter -  'Merde' , or perhaps stronger words.  Some consolation was however given by the King's Musketeers on his left wing,  who won their melee against Imperial 'Blue' Cuirassiers, who were routed off the table and thus out of the fight. 

After all that trauma, the French right-wing infantry amazingly passed their 'fatigue' test and remained sound, but the Imperial right wing cavalry, having lost a cuirassier brigade, rolled badly and became Fatigued - so no more 'attack' orders for them. Some relief  for the French, then, but their situation still looked pretty bad!  

 

Battle rages in the centre - both French 'red' units were doomed


On Turn 6, the Imperial commander went for the coup de grace, with the three brigades of his left wing of infantry given 'Attack' orders, aiming to sweep away the one surviving  French brigade opposite. His right wing of foot, however were told to 'Hold', and be prepared in case the 'Fatigued' cavalry wing to their right gave way. On the French side, right wing horse and foot were both given  'Hold' , but on their left, both horse and foot kept up the 'Attack' in hopes of breaking through to the Southern road - this might be seen as a 'brave'  choice.. The French foot duly charged into contact with their opponents, and the opposing cavalry  extended frontage such that both sides had all four remaining brigades in melee with each other. But it all fell apart - the charging French green-coated foot were stopped in their tracks by Imperialist musketry and 'Disrupted', so could not charge home, and their left wing cavalry lost badly, with Chevaux Legers routed and two Curiassier brigades recoiled, only the Kings Musketeers hanging on. Over on the French Right, their cavalry was finally defeated, with both 'English' brigades routed - so 3 out of 4 brigades gone.  The brave bluecoat infantry were finally routed too, by the flanking black cuirassiers, so the entire  French right wing of both horse and foot were out of the fight. Surely, the end? 

how it ended - badly for the French
 

And so it proved, as 'Fatigue'  tests left the French right wing of cavalry 'Exhausted'  ( must withdraw ) and both right wing infantry and left wing cavalry  'Fatigued'. There followed a 'General Will' test on the whole army - duly failed by the French, having no less than 7 out of 14 brigades routed or destroyed. Failing this test meant defeat for them.

A nice touch is that the rules have a post-battle 'pursuit' phase whereby disordered, disrupted and routed units in the losing army must dice for whether they are destroyed, and commanders of 'fatigued' or 'exhausted' wings dice for being captured - this might be quite useful in a campaign, I think. for once the French rolled well, losing only the Blue-coated foot, no doubt ridden down by those nasty cuirassiers, and the unlucky commander of their right wing of horse. With 9 brigades and 3 generals to test, it could have been a lot worse! 

Finally, you may be wondering what had been occurring in the woods? No teddy bears picnic, but essentially the Veteran French commanded musketeers advanced, and overpowered their Imperial counterparts ( a detachement of MacFarlane's Scots ) who were rated 'Raw'. But this was entirely separate from the main battle, and there was no chance to exploit any advantage gained before the main French army collapsed.  

I have rambled on far too long, so I will save my thoughts on how the rules and scenario worked,  and what I liked or didn't like, for another post.  I hope you've enjoyed reading this account anyway, and maybe picked up an idea of how the rules worked in general. It was a good game, and the rules mostly seemed to go pretty well  - the scenario was always going to be a tough one for the French!  

Next time, a bit of chat about the SELWG show, which I attended last Sunday ( and enjoyed, of course!).  Meanwhile, keep well, everyone.  


21 comments:

  1. Nice report David. It sounds like a fun game and the rules worked well. When I got a copy and read them, I thought they had simply ripped off VnB, but it sounds as if levels of disorder, fatigue etc have been added along with orders. I guess I was expecting some differences in unit organisation and troop types from generic horse and musket types. Of course, there is no reason to do so other than wargamers and their desire for different troop types.
    Interestingly, Frank Chadwick indicated in the designer notes for VnB that a renaissance version could be forthcoming, mentioning bases of a whole Tercio in 6mm, although they have never appeared.
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Neil, glad you enjoyed it. I liked the use of levels of disorder rather than casualty-counting, as I think order and disorder were probably the crucial factor for battles in this period. Indeed the unit types do seem pretty generic - though they also have 'Tercios' ( larger than brigades ), and 'Irregulars' of both horse and foot. I was suprised not to see 'trotters' vs. 'gallopers' in cavalry, however - that division seems quite important. More in a later post..

      Delete
    2. The lack of differentiation between "trotters" and "gallopers" ( or Dutch v Swedish schools) is especially puzzling since VnB has rules for "firearm" cavalry in the C18th rules section and In Deo Veritas when outlining troop types discusses the difference between the two. From your hints, you may have some ideas or comments on this.
      Neil

      Delete
  2. A fine outing for your vintage 15’s (true 15’s :-) ). I like the way that ‘wings’ underpin the rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Norm, some of those figures have been waiting decades to see proper action! I liked the 'wing' idea too, it seems to chime with the realities of the period.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for the game mechanism overview of DV and your battle report. I see much familiar in these rules. DV looks like it would be quick to pick up and assimilate. Looking forward to your First Impressions post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jon, I think the rules are indeed pretty quick to take on board, and 'felt' right a lot pf the time. I did have some 'notes' though, which I will outline in a later post..

      Delete
    2. Excellent! Looking forward to your game notes.

      Delete
  4. Thoroughly enjoyable account David. I read with interest the mechanics... and how the battle fared. I look forward to your post with your reflections on the rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks RIchard, glad you enjoyed it! I do have some comments on the rules, which I will 'put out there' in a future post.

      Delete
  5. Always good to see some 15mm armies in action, and thanks for an overview of some of the rule mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks Peter, yes I was pleased to get my vintage 15mms onto a table! It was interesting that the concept of activating by 'wing' looked similar to your recent Medieval games using activation by 'Battle' - and both seemed to work pretty well.

      Delete
  6. Very interesting report David. The trips on the table look really good. Like contemporary woodcuts.
    Now you’ve got the rule mechanisms under your belt (and in my opinion Jon is right that they are easy to pick up) might you go for a Rocoux style clash with Spanish tercios?
    Chris/Nundanket

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Chris, you are very kind about my figures! Indeed, I think for this period those old paintings and woodcuts are a very useful inspiration for the look of the table.
      I think I have easily enough figures to field my Imperialists in larger 'Tercio' formations, as say Tilly would have in the 1620s. I think my teenage self was aiming at that earlier phase of 30YW - hence lots of cuirassiers and mounted arquebusiers too! ( err.. but I think you might mean Rocroi? Rocoux is more your period??! )

      Delete
    2. Yes you're right. Rocroi. Doh!

      Delete
  7. Can’t think why I’ve never picked up a copy of these rules. On the strength of your very interesting batrep I’m going to remedy that straight away. Nice one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks JBM, I think they are an interesting set of rules and basically good, they seemed to reflect the period pretty well with the importance of order/disorder and the command structure etc. I did have some 'points' which I will discuss in a later post, but I think mostly easily corrected. Next I am going to try 'Twilight of the Divine Right' as a comparison - so watch this space!

      Delete
  8. Nothing like too long! A very enjoyable post. This read as a rather enjoyable game with a good and believable narrative.

    Good to see that those veteran Scots had another 'go' after decades of rest (or more likely decades spent drinking in cheap inns and eyeing the sheep since the 15mm women were in short supply.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ross, too kind! But I know I tend to bang on a bit, and then there's too much time taken up writing the post as well, so one needs to know when to break. It was a fun game, I probably could have given the French a more cunning plan which might have worked better ( attack down the road and hold the other flank? ) but wanted to 'get stuck in' to see how the rules worked.
      I was assuming those Scots would be devout and sober Presbytarians one and all, but of course years of mercenary service in 'the cruel wars in Higher Germany' may have led them astray..

      Delete
  9. I like a post with some content/ words. Nice job. I know Jack-all about the 30 years war but this sounds like a fun rule set. But what you actually thought about it is the best parts. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Stew, the 30YW was contemporary with the ECW ( and acted as a training-ground for many English, Scots and Irish soldiers who then took part in the ECW ) so it's your basic Pike and Shot... Glad you enjoyed it anyway - more on the rules etc in a later post.

      Delete