Richard Bodley Scott has been wargaming since 1971, when he was 17.  His interests are mostly Ancients and Medieval, but also Renaissance. He is a GP (Doctor) and has lived and worked in Usk, Wales, since 1982. The first set of wargames rules he wrote (sadly unpublished), was a set of English Civil War rules for 6mm figures.  He co-authored DBM, which led to DBR, although my involvement in the latter project was less. He is also a co-author of Field of Glory:  Ancient & Medieval and co-author (with Nik Gaukroger and Charles Masefield) of Field of Glory: Renaissance.

Jim Zabek, The Wargamer (WG): Warfare during the Renaissance had changed significantly since the medieval period, so much so that it required an entirely new rule set for Field of Glory.   Can you tell us what has changed between the Renaissance and the rules for ancients and medieval? 

Richard Bodley Scott (RBS): A lot has changed, but the basic mechanisms are the same, and should provide an easy transition (back and forth) for those familiar with FOG:AM. Very broadly, the main changes are as follows:

• A complete revision of the troop-types and troop capabilities to reflect the weapons and tactical doctrines of the period.
• Changes to the combat mechanism to make firearms more effective – despite often being present in relatively small numbers in the earlier part of the period.
• Rules for the various formations which were such an important aspect of military evolution during the period.
• Changes to the deployment and movement rules to reflect the shape of armies on the battlefield, as depicted in contemporary illustrations.

WG: The 16^th and 17^th Centuries were a dynamic period of development for military technology.  What we would call “revolutions in military affairs” were fairly common.  What were some of the challenges you faced in creating a wargaming system for this era?

RBS: Western European infantry tactics started the period with massed pike formations, then evolved gradually throughout the period as firearms became more and more important.  Initially, arquebusiers were in separate bodies from the pikes, and acted mainly as skirmishers or defenders of field fortifications.  The Spanish began experimenting with mixed formations, initially the colunela, each comprising about a 1,000 pikemen, arquebusiers and sword-and-bucklermen. This was then replaced circa 1534 by the tercio, a huge formation comprising 3,000 pikemen and arquebusiers. This acted like a mobile fortress on the battlefield, being capable of delivering an inexorable attack, but also of defending itself from attack from any direction. Its main disadvantage was that only a small proportion of its firepower could be brought to bear frontally. As time went on, tercio formations became shallower and more streamlined, being eventually replaced in the first third of the 17^th century by smaller bodies of about 600 pike and shot, the shot now being ideally 2/3 of the total. The advantage of these smaller, shallower formations was that they maximized frontal firepower. By the time they became standard, the arquebus had largely been replaced by the longer-ranged musket.

Further developments were made by the Swedish army under Gustavus Adolphus, who entered the Thirty Years War in 1630. Firepower was increased by the attachment of small fast-loading guns to each infantry brigade. In addition, instead of one rank firing at a time in a continuous rolling fire, as was traditional, Swedish musketeers were trained to fire, when required,  by volley (salvo), followed by an immediate charge by the pikes while the enemy was reeling.  Effective though these salvo tactics were, their regular use did not survive the destruction of the Swedish army at Nördlingen in 1634.

In the later 17^th century, the proportion of pikes became even lower, ultimately being replaced by the bayonet.

Cavalry tactics also evolved during the period. Initially the main heavy cavalry type was the fully armoured, lance-armed gendarme, the successor of the Medieval knight. In Germany, however, in the mid 16^th century, a new type of cavalry, the pistol-armed reiter, was developed. These formed up in deep formations and used the caracole, a system whereby a deep formation of pistoleers could deliver a continuous barrage of pistol fire against a stationary target (usually a pike block) – each rank firing in turn then moving off to the rear to reload. German reiters were used in large numbers as mercenaries outside Germany. In the last quarter of the 16^th century, the Huguenot (Protestant) faction in the French Wars of Religion re-equipped their aristocratic cavalry with pistols, but, instead of shooting with them at a distance, developed the new tactic of charging vigorously, saving their pistol fire for the moment of impact. These new cuirassier tactics proved superior both against lance-armed gendarmes and traditional reiters. Despite this, for three-quarters of a century there continued to be proponents of the lance and the use of pistol or carbine at a distance. Towards the end of the wars, Henri of Navarre (later Henri IV of France) pioneered the use of commanded shot: detached bodies of infantry arquebusiers placed between the blocks of horse to offset enemy cavalry superiority. This tactic was later put to good use in the 30 Years War and English Civil War. In the 1630s, cavalry tactics developed further, with the use of shallower formations and more aggressive charges.

All the above changes needed to be reflected in the rules, without making the rules too complex.

WG: How did you avoid seeing one “RMA” instantly trump an earlier technology to make a more balanced game?

RBS: This was an important design objective. Historically, however, each “RMA” did not immediately trump the earlier technology. Each infantry evolution took decades to permeate the whole of continental Europe (longer on the fringes), and no state was conquered as a result, so clearly the superiority of the new systems was not overwhelming. Cavalry developments took even longer to be generally adopted. The Spanish favoured the lance until the 1630s, and shooting by cavalry at a distance survived the development of cuirassier tactics by more than 70 years.

This phenomenon was partly due to inertia, and partly because the older systems did have certain advantages of their own. For example, what the tercio lacked in frontal firepower and efficiency, it to some extent made up in resilience and all round protection. 

Hence the rules do reflect the advantages of each new system, but not excessively so, and technological advantages are costed into the points system.

WG: How much emphasis is there on formations in the game, and what kinds of variations are there?

RBS: We wanted the rules to give games that look and feel like historical battles of the period. Formations are therefore important, and must be strictly adhered to. Amongst the specified infantry formations are pike keils, colunelas, early tercios, later tercios, standard pike and shot, and later 17^th century pike and shot with only a few pikes. Whilst avoiding excessive complication, each of these formations has special rules (in the main rulebook) to bring out its flavour. Moreover, the deployment and movement rules favour deployment in the chequerboard formation seen in contemporary illustrations, with infantry in the centre and cavalry on the wings. Other systems from outside the mainstream of Europe are also covered.

WG: Can you discuss the evolving role of armor in the game?

RBS: In the early part of the period pikemen and cavalry were often quite well armoured. In the 17^th century, armour was gradually abandoned, first for infantry then for cavalry, so that by the end of the century most troops lacked armour. We attribute this to the diminishing benefits of armour as firearms became more effective and more prevalent. Nevertheless, armour remained in regular use by troops expected to fight hand-to-hand throughout the 16^th century, so we do represent its benefits, though the advantages are minimal against shot.

WG: Artillery was less effective during this era than it would become later.  How is it incorporated in your rules?

RBS: Artillery was of great importance in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, but its efficacy must not be over-emphasized. It was certainly not as effective as artillery in Napoleonic times, and not capable of repelling an enemy charge on its own. A contemporary depiction of the Battle of Dreux (1562) shows both sides’ artillery surrounded by the dead bodies of their crew, having been ridden over earlier in the battle! What artillery were capable of was causing a slow trickle of casualties on the enemy (heavier if the target was in a deep formation) that could make a defensive position untenable or sufficiently damage an assaulting formation so that other troops could more easily repel the assault. The rules are balanced to reflect this historical role and not over-represent the effect of artillery. The regimental guns pioneered by the Swedish army of Gustavus Adolphus have their own special rules.

WG: Your rules even include accounting for naval bombardment.  That’s really rather novel.  What inspired you to include this aspect?

RBS: Naval bombardment had a significant effect, for example, in the battles of Pinkie (1547), Gravelines (1558) and Nieuwpoort (1600).

WG: Firearms played a growing role in warfare during this period.  Can you share some of the developments and challenges in bringing this aspect to the game? 

As mentioned above, firearms largely negate the effects of armour under the rules. In addition, we wanted their shooting to have as significant effect as it did historically, despite battle groups only being partly comprised of shot bases and ranges being quite short. Those who have played FOG: AM will be familiar with the dreaded “Death Roll”. In order to avoid recording casualties, this is a simple dice roll which must score greater than the number of “hits” (an abstract concept not representing actual physical hits) received to prevent the loss of a base following combat. When shot at, the death roll is made with a +2 bonus to represent the fact that shooting in Ancient and Medieval times was less deadly than close combat. In FOG:R there is no +2 bonus on the Death Roll when shot at mostly by firearms, which makes shooting by firearms significantly more deadly. Troops shot at by bows and other obsolete missile weapons still get the old Death Roll bonus.

The effect of this is that base losses have a much more significant role in FOG:R than in FOG:AM. In addition to ensuring the importance of firearms, play-testers have generally agreed that this increases the tension and excitement in the game.

WG: What types of expansions do you have planned?

RBS: There will be six army list companion books for FOG: R, covering the armies of Europe and the rest of the World throughout the 16^th and 17^th centuries. The first book, Wars of Religion, is being published at the same time as the rules, and covers the armies of the first half of the 17^th century in Western and Central Europe, in particular those of the Thirty Years War and English Civil War. The second book, Trade and Treachery, covers 16^th century warfare in Western and Central Europe, notably the Italian Wars and the various conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the initial turmoil of the Reformation. The third book, Clash of Empires, covers Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the 16^th and (in some cases) 17^th centuries. The fourth book, Colonies and Conquest, covers Arabia, South and East Asia. The fifth book, Duty and Glory, covers the second half of the 17^th century in Europe. The sixth book, Cities of Gold, covers Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

WG: It has been said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.  What lessons of history can the battles of Renaissance Europe teach us?

RBS: The main lesson derived from the wars of the Renaissance is the futility of war. Though they seemed of overwhelming importance to the participants at the time, few of the major conflicts that raged throughout Europe over the 16^th and 17^th centuries had any major lasting geopolitical effects. Some matters of religious or political freedom (or otherwise) were decided, but the map of Europe remained substantially unchanged.

However, safely distanced from the bloodshed by several centuries, we can enjoy the tactical challenge that these wars present to us as wargamers, and the unique flavor of the period.