Hi Guys,
Would appreciate your views on rules for doing ECW. We have tried a couple of games using Polemos, they played ok but left us not very happy with the horse charging/advancing rules. Also, it would be nice to use some rules that allowed for bigger number of stands. Searching the web there are some great pictures of formations of ECW figs but rarely info on what rules they are using. Finally, Mollinary I understand those are your figures on the front of Minauture Wargames this month - they look great, but any chance of some info on your basing and rule set?
Waiting in anticipation :)
Forlorn Hope are my favourite ECW rules but they are a bit difficult to get the hang of. Warre Without an Enemie are based on them and are a lot 'smoother' and imho give the right feel to a game.
My preferred set is Baroque.
I use my own rules. Happy to send you a copy for consideration.
Quote from: Leman on 18 May 2016, 07:13:07 AM
My preferred set is Baroque.
Ditto that. FoG Renaissance also gives a realistic outcome and feel but others will disagree I'm sure as its quite slow almost pedestrian.
it'll hardly be a surprise but my favourite by a country mile is Baroque
Quote from: Jasper on 18 May 2016, 06:30:43 AM
. Finally, Mollinary I understand those are your figures on the front of Minauture Wargames this month - they look great, but any chance of some info on your basing and rule set?
Waiting in anticipation :)
You got me! Embarrassing really, on this forum, as this is the only one of my 10mm collections which isn't mainly Pendraken! Indeed, it is substantially AIM(now Minifigs from Caliver). After I picked up a couple of cheap packs as an experiment when visiting Fall In! At Gettysburg back in the 1990, I believe, I was hooked by the look of 10mm. The collection is now many thousands strong, and is based on 1 1/2" squares as I originally planned to do a variant of Volley and Bayonet. The cavalry are five to a base, musketeers, ten and a drummer,no or officer, Pikemen, sixteen and a number of flags. Since I started I have built up quite a collection of rules, none of which really appealed to me as giving an appropriate flavour while being quick to play and fun. I am now looking at adaptations of two Ancient Rules sets, Commands and Colors Anceints, and To the Strongest. I recently bought Baroque, but confess I couldn't make head or tail of it - I couldn't even work out the turn sequence! So, the collection grows, (latest additions are a Scots army of 600 foot and 180 horse, together with some of the new Pendraken horse and musketeers), but I still have not settled on rules. Sorry!
Mollinary
I'll give another vote to Baroque. I should say that I play solo and Baroque adapted well to this type of play. (The tempo bidding in Polemos ECW, for example, was hard for me to adapt). In Baroque I particularly like the way initiative/activation flips between sides in non-predictive ways. The non-active side also has a reasonable catalog of responses to what the active side does (but the execution of these responses are also generally non-predictive). Finally action is unit by unit - one unit completes all of its actions (and the resolution of those actions) before the next unit can begin. This last is not every one's cup of tea but for a solo player it is excellent. Most of the other game mechanisms are implemented well (and in generally conventional ways).
As Mollinary just said Baroque was a little baffling at first. I think in part because I had no experience with the Impetus rules family. Once I started playing through it - it clicked in place. The native language for the rules is Italian and some of the English translation is a little puzzling (but no more then for an American trying to read this forum :) )
Baroque turn sequence.
Decide which Command has the initiative
Pick a unit of that command - complete it's entire sequence of actions (movement, shooting, etc). Pick another unit, repeat. A unit can attempt multiple actions with an increasing risk of ending in disorder. A unit that engages in melee cannot perform any further actions this turn.
Once all units of that command have activated, decide which command gets the initiative next
Once all commands have had their initiative, that's the end of the turn. Start a new one.
Really it couldn't be a much simpler turn sequence.
Which command has initiative is randomised by selection and opposed dice rolls, choice of activity thereafter is up to you (except that you must complete everything one unit does before starting on another)
Hi
After looking for many years I have settled on two (after trying some of the above).
FoG Renaissance, and for something a bit different Carnage and Glory II - The Age of Pike and Shot (link: http://carnageandgloryii.com/index.htm)
The second set are computer generated. Both give, in my opinion, a good 'feel' for the period.
I have looked at Baroque, and although I play Impetus, I have been put off by the basing system which I feel will inhibit flexibility.
Good luck with finding the right rules for you.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: T13A on 18 May 2016, 02:48:22 PM
I have looked at Baroque, and although I play Impetus, I have been put off by the basing system which I feel will inhibit flexibility.
This is a good point. I play with many odd unit types with varying make-up (17th c. Scotland and Ireland). I use small uniformly sized bases that are then assembled into sabots in various ways. Not as aesthetically pleasing BUT entirely workable. At the moment I have to adapt the unit capabilities charts (although D&P and others seem to be producing new ones on a regular basis).
Quote from: T13A on 18 May 2016, 02:48:22 PM
I have looked at Baroque, and although I play Impetus, I have been put off by the basing system which I feel will inhibit flexibility.
Cheers Paul
But the basing system is completely flexible :o
Whatever size base you want to use, use - the ranges conform automatically as they are based on the unit frontage.
I'm deliberately using really big bases but most chaps are using combined DBR/FOGR bases - to all intents and purposes a Baroque unit/base is a FOGR battlegroup, it's probably the easiest 'conversion' there is!
It's irksome that it's different to Impetus but really there's little historical overlap as unlike most renaissance rules they start in 1560 and the Italian Wars are part of Impetus but even there if your troops are already based for FOG / DBx then you can switch them between Impetus and Baroque in a way I couldn't (my Impetus are 15mm as well which is another reason :D )
I vote Baroque as well although I would also like to try 'A Crowning Mercy' available from Caliver books.
Hi All,
All the responses are great, just what I was hoping for and please keep them coming.
For info, I am continually torn on scale for basing, hence why I like to hear what others have done and why. Current bases are 80mm x 40mm with one base being a regiment. However, one of my favorite rule sets for other periods is Regimental Fire and Fury and my heart really wants to adopt similar basing for the ECW, with one base representing 40 men. All in 10mm of course for figs :)
Please keep the suggestions and advice coming guys :)
Quote from: mollinary on 18 May 2016, 02:03:10 PM
You got me!
Mollinary
Sorry if I blew your cover mate :)
Hi Zippee
When I am playing ECW I want the flexibility to put an individual unit in different formations. That is, have a regiment of foot in line or in march column, put my pikes at the front of a column, have a regiment of horse in a single line (of bases) and thereby doubling its frontage etc. And with all the relevant pros and cons of those particular formations.
Unless I have misunderstood the basing system of Baroque I do not believe I can have that kind of flexibility. Having a unit of pike and shot based together on a single base for an ECW game (where the forces can be quite modest compared with some ancient battles) just does not feel right to me. I want a bit more granularity in my ECW games.
Just my tuppence worth!
Cheers Paul
Quote from: Jasper on 18 May 2016, 08:10:02 PM
Sorry if I blew your cover mate :)
Well, I think it was only a matter of time! :) As far as I can remember (!) my original organisation was based on doing Edgehill at a scale of 1:10. I did loads of calculations, based on infantry orders six deep. Each rank of figures represented one and a half ranks in real life. The musketeers were supposed to represent the moment they had doubled up to provide a 'salvee', and so were only 2 figures deep. The musketeer base was supposed to be open order, the pike close order. A rank of horse was equivalent to three in real life. Since I started I have moved away from such rigid representations, and am happy to regard them as sleeves, blocks, troops or squadrons as required!
The frustrating thing is I have achieved my first objective, which was to create armies for the ECW which look like the engravings and paintings of the period. In particular, pike blocks which look like pike blocks. But I still cannot play with my toys with a rule set I like! :'( :'(.
Another thought I have periodically grappled with is Sam Mustafa's Maurice, minimally adapted. If someone produced character cards adapted to ECW I think I might be tipped over the edge!
Mollinary
Quote from: T13A on 18 May 2016, 08:24:09 PM
Hi Zippee
When I am playing ECW I want the flexibility to put an individual unit in different formations. That is, have a regiment of foot in line or in march column, put my pikes at the front of a column, have a regiment of horse in a single line (of bases) and thereby doubling its frontage etc. And with all the relevant pros and cons of those particular formations.
Unless I have misunderstood the basing system of Baroque I do not believe I can have that kind of flexibility. Having a unit of pike and shot based together on a single base for an ECW game (where the forces can be quite modest compared with some ancient battles) just does not feel right to me. I want a bit more granularity in my ECW games.
Just my tuppence worth!
Cheers Paul
That's fair enough - but I would agree that its a matter of granularity of design rather than basing flexibility. You could use small bases and move stuff around and play Baroque it just wouldn't 'mean' anything in rules terms.
For the granularity you want I think something like Forlorn Hope is closer to the mark
Quote from: Zippee on 18 May 2016, 08:53:23 PM
For the granularity you want I think something like Forlorn Hope is closer to the mark
- or
Pike&Shotte since there are now some rule extensions that allow the muskets and pikes to function as an integrated unit. Personally I like
Forlorn Hope better.
I've toyed with Forlorn hope a few times in the past but Pikes always seemed to be too powerful and muskets too ineffectual; the Polemos rules suffer from the same issue (unsurprisingly). I know muskets weren't battle winners at this time but if Pikes had been so much better in a fight there surely wouldn't have been such a drift towards the musket as the war progressed. I've thought of upping the range of muskets so they at least get a volley in before melee ensues but it feels like maybe a fudge too far.
I wasn't initially a fan of the Polemos cavalry rules but have come round now... the only 'safe' way to Charge is to be using Swedish Tactics + Good Quality which is fair enough but I'm not sure those using Dutch Tactics and simply Advancing to contact should be as effective as it is though. In the end however I have to defer to the rules writer as my knowledge of ECW Cavalry warfare is only moderately good.
Baroque intrigues me... it seems to fit the basing I've chosen (one base per regiment) so I might pick a copy up at Partizan at the weekend if there are any around.
Inevitably with such threads as these a lot of recommendations are about our personal choice of rules and how much we want a good game vs historical accuracy; always coloured by our own (mis)conceptions of course, but it's good to air our thoughts. Any Baroque players care to comment of the effectiveness of various pike:shot ratios and the differential between Swedish and Dutch Cavalry in the rules?
Cheers
Quote from: ffoulk on 18 May 2016, 10:01:01 PM
Any Baroque players care to comment of the effectiveness of various pike:shot ratios and the differential between Swedish and Dutch Cavalry in the rules?
As you probably already know Baroque is not an ECW specific rules set and being new has a limited number of army lists available (but they are being added with some regularity - beta lists anyway). the Royalist and Parliamentary lists currently only cover roughly Edgehill to Marston Moor.
My play experience is limited and if you read my other posts, somewhat specialized.
Briefly - musket to pike ratios are abstracted. Each unit ("regiment") has a VBU (think combat value) which is used for both fire and melee. M&P units have a modifier that reduces the VBU when used for fire. The greater the reduction the larger the pike to musket ratio. In the English lists all M&P units are set at -2. (This will clearly change for some later war units). Note that the VBU is reduced by casualties.
Muskets are pretty effective at very close range ( one foot unit move distance), somewhat effective at close range (one horse unit move distance) and might occasionally score a hit at long range (two horse unit move distances).
A M&P unit being charged will likely get defensive fire and the results of that fire immediately applied. The presence of pikes reduces the combat value of the horse. So far it seems that fire, while not usually the decisive factor, can weaken the enemy sufficiently to make a victory in melee much more likely. For me at least this seems a fair representation of the period.
OK - Dutch vs Swedish ( Baroque uses the more common Trotter vs Galloper) . Incidentally there are other types of horse but I'm leaving them out of the discussion. Only the Royalists (in the current list) have Gallopers. Both types (assuming the same discipline or quality) have very comparable movement and combat values. Trotters generally do have the capability of firing their pistols after defensive fire but before commencing melee and, like defensive fire, those results are immediately applied. All horse can pursue a defeated foe but gallopers are forced to do so. Within each disciple/quality class, Gallopers have a slightly greater impetus bonus (an increase to the combat value on an initial charge). Gallopers also have a better chance of getting a longer pursuit distance and longer charge distance bonus.
I haven't used Gallopers (having lancers instead) but a couple of observation from games:
The pistol volley used by my Trotters usual resulted in minimal effectct but on a couple of occasions it caused a substantial reduction in the defender's combat value and was likely the difference in winning the melee which followed.
In another case I had a Trotter unit rout a weak warband unit, take the allowed pursuit move and catch another unit in the flank, cutting them up petty nicely also. So - acting a lot like Gallopers.
Hope this makes some sense and is of some help - oh - Welcome to the forum! :)
Cheers d-Guy. Great info. Sounds like Baroque could be a good option. Not so bothered about army lists (although in the long run who doesn't love reading army lists?!).
Will definitely pick them up at the weekend now. Sadly, for my ECW gaming, I'm off to Canada for the next six months and have opted not to risk transporting an army with Pikes so it'll be December before I get back to the period :(
Our group, unsurprisingly, uses the 'Warr without an Enemie' rules. These are aimed at smaller battles with 5 to 10 units a side. They are influenced by the Forlorn Hope rules and current thought on ECW tactics. So for example it has 4 English cavalry types (Pistoleers - typically early Parliament, Gallopers - very early Royalists and the more commonly used Dutch & Swedish types) and not the 2 often used - typically, and wrongly, called trotters and gallopers.
At the moment we are working on an extension of another set (Twilight of the Sun King) aimed at doing big battles - most ECW battles will be 1 player vs 1 player. These very much look at the big picture but they do allow full battles to be done reasonably.