This is a ‘live’ blog post so will be updated as I experiment with the concepts. This version is dated 25 April 2025.

"Something's wrong with our d'mn muskets today!"

I was having a conversation with Mike Guth on the Fantasticus Board a while back. Mike was one of the original rules testers for De Bellis Renatonis (DBR) back in the day and he had these comments to make.

“Michael Guth (listed in the back of the DBR rule book).
”To this day the firepower in DBA and DBR is off. The problem is the ability to voluntarily combine fire at distant targets. Also there is no negative factor for firing at long range, and no decrement of fire for ammunition reloading, wind, or smoke obscuring target in the shot period. Pikes simply get slaughtered in DBR. Tournament after tournament revealed this flaw. DBR creates the shot and pikeless era. Try requiring elements to fire at the closest target within range, or a -1 for distant shooting beyond one base width distance..... Also, the +4 factor for Shot counting as a hand to hand factor against pike is probably off as well. One could argue that it includes the effects of a devastating close range volley by Shot. But Shot of this era were fighting quite dispersed. Otherwise your burning match cord could set your neighbours powder on fire!. Also, read the section on ballistics in Hall’s Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe.
On balance DBR is better for the earlier pike and shot era than the later IMO, because the arquebus or shot I range is shorter, and pike can actually defeat inferior shot; unlike their later ordinary and superior cousins.
The DBX model has a problem in pike and shot gaming because the individual base model has trouble accounting as a construct for combined pike and shot blocks. I’m no FOG fan, but the FOG system tried to model pike and shot formations in a more historical way while still using DBA elements. I have not played the latest version of FOG. Sadly, FOG requires very BIG armies.””

— From

From <https://fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2616/dbr-bellis-renationis-using-rules>

While I hear what Mike is saying and have experienced this myself, however, I also play Horse, Foot, Guns from WRG, using the same DBX mechanism and do not encounter the same sort of problems as I do with DBR. So what is the difference between these rule sets that is making the difference?

Rules mechanism

One of the difficulties in understanding the rules is that it uses a Comparative mechanism, comparing one players set of Combat Factors plus Tactical Factors plus a 1D6 Die Roll with the others players set of results. This gives you a set of possible 36 results with the Combat and Tactical Factors skewing the results in one players favour. These results are then modified further by Grading Factors to increase the severity of the results for Inferior troops, for instance.

The best way to display these outcomes is on a grid where the result of one player can be compared to the result of the other play and all the possible 36 outcomes can be displayed in a 6 by 6 box. The Winners score is down the left hand side (y-axis) and the Losers score is across the top (x-axis)

The loser of the combat with the lower score, sufferers an Outcome Result based on whether their score is “Less than Half” their opponents (in which case they recoil) or whether it is “Half or more than Half” their opponents score (in which case they are destroyed).

A common combat scenarios

Two Shot elements enage another in Distant Combat with a Shooting (Combat) Factor (SF) of ‘4’ and no Tactical Factors. The die roll will give a range of outcomes between 5 and 10 as shown below:

The result purely depends on the dice roll of the players and the loser will be destroyed if they roll a ‘1’ against the other players ‘6’ (Factors 5 vs 10). Fairly straightforward.

So what is the result if Shot engages other types of elements? Shot would be Shooting Factor (SF) 4 against Pikes (SF 3), Light Horse (SF 2) or Skirmishers (SF 2). In all cases, the results would be shifted to the left as show below.

In cases where there is a principal Shot firer and several supporting Shot elements, the target gets a minus factor up to -2 and the result of this is again to shift the results to the left.

The consequences of this are to greatly increase the chances of the element being destroyed and to have less chance of a recoil result and a lowered chance of a positive result in the combat.

Combat Outcomes Shot versus troops with lower Shooting Factors or adding additional Shot elements

Another common combat match is Pistols (SF 3) against Shot (SF 2). The lower factors mean that the results box are shifted one row upwards and one row left compared to our Shot versus Shot combat. The significance of this is that the higher up the result table you go, the narrower the results outcomes become and so the more extreme the results. Lowering the Pistols to SF 3, actually makes them more destructive and by giving them a Shooting Factor advanatge of ‘1’ over the Shot shifts the results to the left. This gives 6 outcomes (3,4,5,6 vs 1 or 5,6 vs 2) when the Shot would be destroyed if they lose against the Pistols. By contrast, if the Pistols lose the combat, only a 6 vs 1 result will destroy them. The advantage of Pistols is quite large even though their Shooting Factors differ by only ‘1’ from that of the Shot and this is entirely due to both having low Shooting Factors and hence higher up the table.

Of course, there are lots of common combats, so the table below shows some typical ones with their outcomes already worked out. Our ‘standard’ Shot versus Shot example is at the top as a baseline and in most cases there are no Tactical or Grading Factors to consider. The first example is Shot versus Pike where the only difference is a Shooting Combat Factor of ‘1’. This moves the chance of being destroyed from 3% of our baseline to 11%.

The second example is when 3 Shot fire on a single enemy Shot which in turn causes a Tactical Factor of ‘-2’. You would get the same effect if one Shot (SF 4) fired on Light Cavalry (SF 2). The result is a big leap to a 25% chance of being destroyed and more than doubles the chance of the Shot being destroyed compared to three individual elements firing on a single element, one after the other.

The third example is our earlier Pistols (SF 3) versus Shot (SF 2) with a 17% chance of the Shot being destroyed. Again a big step up from the Shot (SF 4) versus Pike (SF 4) outcome entirely due to the lower factors, narrowing the range of options and making them more extreme.

The final example shows a SF 4 : 2 match with a 25% chance and a SF 4 : 0 match when there is a 58% chance that the Light Horse will be destroyed by 3 Shot.

Lining Up Issues

One of the key issues raised from the section above is how the player is allowed to line up their elements to fire in order to gain those all important Support bonuses. The relevant section of the rules states:

“A target element must shoot back if it can. Others can only shoot at the closest range valid target not already being shot at by 3 elements, except that artillery can choose to ignore and shoot………….

An element is a valid target if it is visible, in range, any part is within an element base width of straight ahead of any part of the shooting edge, it is not in frontal edge contact with enemy and (unless shot at from a hill or fortification by artillery other than (X)), no part of another friendly or visible enemy element is between imaginary lines connecting one front rank shooting edge corner to any corner of the target element and the other to an adjacent corner without crossing or passing through any element except the target.” page 19 para 3

Modern interpretations of the rules are that each element must shoot at its closest target and so elements ‘mathc up’ against their opposite number and the Supporting Element Bonus is only gained by a) second rank of elements b) overlaps when one side outnumbers the other.

We can see the difference this makes in the scenario below:

Using option 1 the Shot player might get a Destroyed and a Recoil as a result while the same die rolls for Option 2 would result in four Recoils.

Horse, Foot and Guns

The Outcomes table for Horse, Foot and Guns (HFG) is broadly the same as for DBR with the exception that the winner usually gets some sort of Press Forward option. The game mechanism is pretty much the same as for DBR with Combat Factors, Tactical Factors and a 1D6 dice roll, then the result is modified by Grading Factors. Yet, you do not get the sorts of mismatches that you get with DBR and there are a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, HFG has a much smaller range of Combat Factors (CF) for its Infantry units, Bayonets are Comabt Factor (CF) 3, and most other Foot elements are CF 2 with the exception of Heavy Smoothbore Artillery (CF 4) or Light Horse (CF 1). Most Horse are SF 3 or 4 with the exception of Light Cavalry Dragoons which have CF 2. This narrower spread avoids the extreme outcomes.

Secondly, additional shooting elements ADD 1 to 3 to the Firer’s score rather than in DBR where there is a DEDUCTION of 1 to 2 from the Targets score. The effect of this is to push the results box to Downwards, which widens the results options as well as making them less extreme, so overall the effect is less damaging than in DBR.

These smaller difference in Combat Factors have a large effect on the game, as is shown by typical combats in HFG in the table below. While broadly similar in outcome, HFG avoids the extremes shown in DBR outcomes. While I have concentrated on Shooting results, the mechanism and results are broadly the same for Close Combat as well.

The TRyanny of the outcomes table

The layout of the Outcomes Table determines much of the structure of the DBX family of games since it limits the outcomes to essentially four results:

Winning
Evens
Less Than (results in Recoil, etc)
Half or Greater (results in Destroyed, etc)

The other element is the use of a 1D6 which in many combats will account for around 50% of the final score. (Typically: Combat Factor 3 plus Tactical Factor 1 plus 1-6 on the die roll). The effect of this structure is to limit the workable Combat Factors to just 2,3 and 4.

For instance, in Horse, Foot and Guns take the Ironclad Combat Factor 5, the possible outcomes are CF5 plus the die roll, so a range of results from 6 to 11. To Destroy an Ironclad requires the shooter to acquire 12 or more factors, so Heavy Artillery CF 3 plus TF 1 for an additional artillery shooter and firing within 1,000p to escape the long range penalty of TF -1. With a die roll of 6 this still only equals 10. Another Ironclad (within 1,000p) with a CF 5 plus 6 only equals 11, so again fails to destroy its opposite number.

In fact, on land the maximum you can score if infantry vs infantry is CF3 plus TF 3 so a total result of 12 and infantry vs mounted is CF 4 plus TF 3 so a total result of 13. The result of this is to make CF 5 virtually indestructable which is why this CF is only used for BUA, Laager and Ironclad.

By the same token, CF 1 is so weak as to be virtually useless, as a range of results from 2 to 7 mean that it can be Destroyed by just a result of 4 or more, making Light Horse very fragile. While this might be appropriate in making Marksmen very vulnerable against Mounted and restrictig their effective use to Woods (TF +2) it is only really useful as a specialist application.

What this means for the rules’ author is that, in the case of DBR, all the troop types over 300 years of the Renaissance, (or in the case of HFG, all the troop types over 214 years,) have to be represented by just three numbers: 2,3,4. This is hardwired into the rules by the Outcomes table and the requirement to double the enemy’s score.

There is a second weakness in the structure which is that these results are not absolute, they are comparative. Take a weak Troop Type in DBR such as skirmishers with CF 2. They have the outside chance to Destroy Pikes (CF 3) or several of them Destroy Shot (CF 4). Yet in reality, the weak firepower and close-combat ability of skirmishers might damage an element of Pikes or Shot but not disperse them entirely. It is the large influence, usually over 50%, of the die roll that makes this possible coupled with the comparison of one elements score with the others.

Can the outcomes table be improved?

If there is any scope to improve on the DBX family of rule sets, then it is going to be through changing the Outcomes table. Remove the doubling requirement to Destroy elements and suddenly a whole world of possibilities.opens up. Now you could use a greater range of numbers to represent troop types 2,3,4,5,6,7,8. You could have separate tables of Combat Factors for both Distant and Close-Combat which would again increase troop type variability. This would address those mismatches of strong Distant combat elements such as Shot when fighting strong Close combat elements such as Pike. Rather than a mismatched 4 vs 3, we could have a 4 vs 3 for shooting and a 2 vs 3 for close combat. Some Troop Types could be good at Distant Combat and rubbish at Close Combat which actually relfects historical reality. Likewise, having the possibility of higher Combat Factors would reduce the influence of the Die Roll to less than 50%, reducing those outlier outcomes. Also, there would be the potential for additional types of outcome rather than just the four levels of Win, Evens, Less than and Half.

The way to approach this is to compare total scores as now and then have a ladder of results for the difference in score. For example a CF 6 fighting a CF 2 would give results of:

CF 6 plus TF 1 (for a supporting element) plus 1D6 = result range 8 to 11

CF2 plus 1D6 = result range 3 to 8

The CF2 cannot win against the CF6 so would represent an unarmoured hand-held weapon armed element fighting a shooting weapon. It can draw on a die roll of 1 to 6 adn we might see it Recoil on a difference of 1 or 2, Repulsed 600p on a difference of 3 or 4 and Destroyed on a difference of 5. This reduces the effect of comparative scores as elements with high Combat Factors are powerful despite the die roll.

As discussed earlier in this post, the ‘funnelling’ effect of low Combat Factors giving extreme results and a steep gradient in the steps between results, would be reduced if say all Combat Factors were increased by 2. This would move the results to a wider part of the table where there is more ‘room’ for a series of steps of results and it would get over the problem of over powerful elements with low Combat Factors, such as the DBR Pistols and Pikes match-up.