Pendraken Miniatures Forum

I'm thinking about a possible ECW project using Baroque. We need to test the rules with our regular group to confirm that they are a suitable rule set for all.

In the mean time I have been looking at the Baroque lists and Pendraken figures, as you do ;)

I really like Zippee's basing http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16003.msg232924.html#msg232924 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16003.msg232924.html#msg232924) :-bd =D> :-bd =D>

The full Baroque lists need 20 stands of Horse and 34 stands of Foot. Almost 1,000 figures including Dragoons, artillery and officers :o :o :o

I can probably justify about half that for this project. My thoughts are to go with about 12 stands of Horse and 18 stands of Foot plus Dragoons, artillery and officers :-\

My aim is to have enough flexibility to use some of the units for either side (probably using coloured VBU dice to identify sides/commands).
I'm interested in the forums thoughts on the practicality of this approach.

I like to base my forces on historic armies so am interested in suggestions for armies to base my forces on, a stand of Foot corresponds to a battalia.
Pierre the Shy is looking at possibly doing some forces from 'north of the border' so armies that operated up that way would be a bonus.

Yoiks! That's a big project chaps.

I shall follow this with interest.

Take care

Andy

I look forward to this.  Having opponents for your mate's Scots is no real problem, they did get about a bit!

Assuming you want an English army, rather than Montrose's, then a couple of simple tricks should make them usable for either side. First, keep away from certain uniform colours which seem to have been used by only one side, or sometimes, a single regiment. So, no purple or orange coats. Second, some regiments, such as Prince Rupert's , and the King's,  Queen's and Prince of Wales'  regiments, had unique flags which make them instantly recognisable. If you go for basic flags, Colonel's (usually a plain single colour, with no emblems), Lt Colonel (similar, but with a cross of St George in the canton), and Major (same a similar Lt Col but often with a wavy flame coming from the corner of the canton), then the regiments should be easily swappable from one side to the other. Avoid giving officers orange sashes, they seem to be uniquely Parliamentarian. Otherwise, blue, green, yellow, and even red, seem to have been used by either side.

Anyway, good luck.

Mollinary

If flags are to be the identifer, can you make them replaceable so you can slide them off and on the poles as needed?

Well I've (almost) finished all the WW1 stuff I have to base so onto new projects.....

We've played one "serious" test game of Baroque using Inverlochy as a basis and Paul has been running some "tests" with English ECW units in between invading the Solomons.      

Uniform colours for the Covenanters aren't a problem - any colour you like so long as its grey with a blue bonnet :)

And Scots highlander, cavalry and artillery units are likewise fairly generic so could be used in either Covenant or Montrose's army which means we can "get away" with less units but still have plenty of verity in opposing armies.

Had a thought about uses for some of the new Eastern European TB ranges that PM have just acquired, but thats probably a project for 2018   ;)

Cheers
Peter

I will also enjoy watching this project unfold as I admire the work you guys have done and are doing.

I use different colored VBU die to indicate which side is which. Even with flags they let you see at a glance who is who. I am currently considering having a different color for each command (so as many  as eight).

I also greatly admire Zippee's work and he has already discribed the rationale he uses in building his units (stands). He uses many highly recognizable flags and standardizes on a base uniform color for each "regular" unit which is very pleasing to the eye. He may want to comment further but since he carefully organizes along the Royalist/Parlimentarian lines (rather than regional armies at different times) I suspect he can do what ever battle he wants plus use the Baroque point system (which his stands seem particularly geared to) to do generic battles. It is a great way to go. Of course I could be wrong in all of this (I frequently am!)

In simply studying countless pictures of how many folks have done their ECW armies, most seem to follow the approach of recreating all the well known and best documented units (I certainly did when I did the ECW in 25/28mm) and then not worring about if that unit was at a specific battle.

With the exception of some of Montrose's units I took the course suggested by Mollinary when I did my new armies in 10mm. Blues, reds and greys predominate and many generic regimental flags. The command elements can be switched out or, as Pixie suggested, I also use some command elements that can have different flags shifted off and on. I also go totally anachronistic and add a "faction" flag to each command element.

The non-generic approach is to select a specific battle from the First Civil War and use the order of battle to determine your army list.
Edgehill is a very attractive early war battle which gives you a partularly great assortment of units to pick from. Since Pierre wants a Scots Army, Marston Moor would be a great choice with Royalist, Parliamentarian and Covenanter armies.

You are probably already aware of Project BCW but just in case here is a link to the Regimental Wiki:
http://wiki.bcw-project.org
This has summary of most known units for every army with basic information including flags and coat color(if known). It is continually being updated.

A couple of questions:
You gave a very specific number for the number of stands you would need for Baroque, ideal and reasonable. How did you arrive at those numbers?
"Battalia" gets used in different ways (I here groans in the background  :) ). Usually something like a brigade but also often something like a regiment (and other usages are possible). I am assuming you are thinking the regimental level?

Don't know if any of this helps since my approach to wargaming the period may at best be called eccentric!  :)

Quote from: d_Guy on 25 July 2017, 02:08:31 PM
I also greatly admire Zippee's work and he has already discribed the rationale he uses in building his units (stands). He uses many highly recognizable flags and standardizes on a base uniform color for each "regular" unit which is very pleasing to the eye. He may want to comment further but since he carefully organizes along the Royalist/Parlimentarian lines (rather than regional armies at different times) I suspect he can do what ever battle he wants plus use the Baroque point system (which his stands seem particularly geared to) to do generic battles. It is a great way to go. Of course I could be wrong in all of this (I frequently am!)

Glad to be an inspiration :)

d_Guy has it mostly right. The choice of flags was determined by the flags available, they were issued and units/stands labelled accordingly. I made no real effort to match uniform colour to that or with the historical record. The record being so patchy I'm not convinced that just because we know such-a-such unit was issued or called 'green' doesn't mean it always wore green.

I built my armies based on the published lists - that gives me sufficient units that anything but the very largest battles are accessible to me and recognises that the bulk of games will be generic / fictional and often points based because that's quick and easy.

I am also very assuredly going to use the bulk of those units as generic EPM, GA, TR or whatever units in any other western army of the period - to this ECW core will be added the necessary extras in terms of unit types to generate TYW and other sub-periods. That is the way I build periods I don't repeat bulk work of generic troop types but add additions to the core. I see 3 broad periods in Baroque: 1550-1610; 1610-1660 and 1660-1700, my ECW forces are the vast bulk of the troops I need for the middle period. So they are ECW in name only really  :o

Agree. Unless you are doing a very specific battle where a contemporary account actually mentions that such and such a regiment wore a particular color (coat and breeches usually) it is difficult to impossible to assign a color. I often match coat to standard but that was more often not the case.

Quote from: pierre the shy on 25 July 2017, 11:32:31 AM
Uniform colours for the Covenanters aren't a problem - any colour you like so long as its grey with a blue bonnet :)

This is about as close to uniformity as you can get since the the Covenanting central government provided coats, breeches, hose,etc. and the ubiquitous blue bonnets. But as others have said before think fifty shades of grey! Hodden was a mix of natural black, brown and yellow-white wool in no fixed proportion (that I know of) which lets you use a mixture of shades from light brown to blue grey. The Hodden that was worn in more modern times is a red grey.

If you are to doing the Scots army that arrived in early 1642 in Ulster, in part under the auspices of the English Parliament, they were provided with RED cloth for coats. When some were withdrawn to help deal with Montrose in 1644 some or all may still have been wearing red. To add to the confusion the Scots referred to them as "Irish" foot.

Sorry - started doing a core dump! :)

Thanks all, some very useful thoughts
This is still very much a possible project, we need our regular group to be happy with the rules

Quote from: d_Guy on 25 July 2017, 02:08:31 PM
The non-generic approach is to select a specific battle from the First Civil War and use the order of battle to determine your army list.
Edgehill is a very attractive early war battle which gives you a partularly great assortment of units to pick from. Since Pierre wants a Scots Army, Marston Moor would be a great choice with Royalist, Parliamentarian and Covenanter armies.

A couple of questions:
You gave a very specific number for the number of stands you would need for Baroque, ideal and reasonable. How did you arrive at those numbers?
"Battalia" gets used in different ways (I here groans in the background  :) ). Usually something like a brigade but also often something like a regiment (and other usages are possible). I am assuming you are thinking the regimental level?

Don't know if any of this helps since my approach to wargaming the period may at best be called eccentric!  :)

I'm looking at using the non-generic approach to guide the organisation and painting of the armies then will use the troops more generically. Using Project BCW and similar resources will give me a better looking mix of units than trying to make them up.

I'll do a bit of reading on Edgehill & Maston Moor. Any other suggestions  :-\

The specific numbers come from examining the Baroque ECW army lists, they are the numbers required to have all the maximums.

My question for the reasonable numbers; 12 Horse and 18 Foot, is will this give me enough stands for two armies to give a reasonable game using Baroque?
Will it allow enough scope for variation between the armies?

I am using battalia to mean a tactical unit that fights together akin to a regiment. From the little I have read large regiments sometimes fought as more than one 'battalia' and several small regiments were sometimes 'brigaded' to form a single battalia ;)

Very helpful, thanks

Thanks, I had not done the math but thought that was your approach, using the two ECW tables in the rule book plus (I think) the Covenanter table at the D&P website? (they also have Montrose).

To me (and realizing I mainly play small battles and those solo) 18 foot (M&P) and 12 horse seems more* than sufficient for many varied and interesting games (particularly if several of the units can be assigned to either side). In a pinch the musketeers (commanded shot) and dragoons can play either role, so two or three of each should be enough. Field Guns are next to useless but a few for looks.  :)

* I think you could easily have fun battles with 12 foot and 8 (or 6!) horse

A great book to look at to get an idea of the main battles and a military overview of the First Civil War is the classic:
"The Great Civil War a military history of the first civil war 1642 - 1646" Burne and Young (1959). A very quick read by two accomplished wargamers, historians and combat soldiers.

In my head I call them Brigades, Regiments, and Battalions with the same understanding you have, just checking  :)

I think we had communicated before that Inverlochy was almost a one of a kind battle, atypical even for Montrose's campaign and probably not the best showcase for Baroque. That it seemed to work well is a tribute to the rules. I think you or Peter had mentioned some dislike of the Cohesion Test since a bad 1d6 can seriously mess up your plans. Even then several bad things have to happen to get you to that point.  It is an aquired taste but I love it.

I flowcharted the major Baroque game flow (as I do it) to help me sort it out and have as a quick reference:

https://inredcoatragsattired.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/baroque-unit-action-flowchart1.pdf

Feel free to use and/or debug!

Hope this project will go forward - best of luck!

Thanks dGuy

The next step is to have a test game using some cardboard markers I made up from some pictures on Junior General, if the rules work for all then I will look at some more detailed plans

This test game will have to fit in around the defence of Guadalcanal, a WW I battle, and a 1987 Cold War goes hot game. And that's just the next two weekends :o

Just as well we both have plenty of brownie points  ;)

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing this develop.

You might find it creeps up to the 1000 figures in no time, if you are not careful. I started off with a Pendraken French Army pack for the WSS, with the intention to add "a few more units". It's well over 1000 painted figures now and will be over 1200 after the current round of units are finished!

We use Baroque at our club and can confirm they are a fun set of rules and fairly quick to learn once you get over the Italian/English translation nuances. The lists for ECW though have fallen into the usual misconceptions and generalisations but I understand it's probably necessary for a list provided with the main set of rules. There are a couple of better lists on the forums and I am working on some more regional lists.

Figure creep is indeed a possibility ;)

I've put together a quick reference sheet that helps overcome some of the translation issues and also hopefully includes everything you actually need on a QRS. Our group plays about a dozen rule sets / variants so we need good QRS to help us remember each game @-)

I'll have a look on the forum and I look forward to seeing some more varied regional lists. Are there any troop types that are completely missing on the main lists?

Quote from: paulr on 26 July 2017, 07:31:32 PM


I've put together a quick reference sheet that helps overcome some of the translation issues and also hopefully includes everything you actually need on a QRS

If it would be possible to share this it would be great. I've had a couple of goes at getting my head around Baroque, but still don't feel confident - and as I'm one of the main rule people in our group, and one of the few interested in this period, if I don't get my head around them, then no one else will.                                                                                                                                                                                 

Hi Fred, I'm happy to share so long as the requestor has access to a copy of the rules

PM your email address and I'll send you a copy, feedback welcome

We still haven't had our test game of Baroque so this is still a tentative project. I have, however, been thinking about my possible order.

I'm looking to avoid the traditional stereotypes of Royalists in floppy hats and lobster potted Parliamentarians but am not sure what the current consensus is.

Am I correct in assuming both sides had cavalry in hats (EC9) and cavalry in helmet (EC10)?
Would units be likely to be mixed (EC9 & EC10)?

I assume that Pike were a mix of armoured (EC1) and unarmoured (EC2), in what proportions?
Did better units tend to have more armoured pike men or did the use of armour decline during the war?

For musketeers were a mix of caps and hats worn in the same unit or would it be one or the other, were hats most common?

And finally would dragoons wear a mix of morions and caps in the same unit?

These two codes sound similar, how do they differ?

EC28 Musketeers advancing hat - Pack contains 30 figures (2 poses)
EC37 Musketeers, advancing - Pack contains 30 figures (2 poses)

I couldn't find a picture of EC28

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:49:36 PM
These two codes sound similar, how do they differ?

EC28 Musketeers advancing hat - Pack contains 30 figures (2 poses)
EC37 Musketeers, advancing - Pack contains 30 figures (2 poses)

I couldn't find a picture of EC28

Not quite, EC28 is only the one pose and is firing not advancing

EC28
30x Musket A - Firing, hat (no rest)
see front rank here
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4155/34133699690_9825dee73e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U1h8HC)T02 - Conyer Darcy's Foot - 02 (https://flic.kr/p/U1h8HC) by Zippee Jerred (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/), on Flickr


EC37
15 x Musket A - Ready, hat (no rest) - rear rank above
15 x Musket B - Advancing, hat (no rest) - rear rank below

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4157/34133701010_83fefb2315_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U1h97o)SK01 - Forlorn Hope - 02 (https://flic.kr/p/U1h97o) by Zippee Jerred (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/), on Flickr



did you mean EC36 ?
EC36
15 x Musket A - Marching, hat, rest
15 x Musket B - Marching, cap, rest

Thanks Zippee

I was confused by the label on the website. Leon might need to tweak the text for EC28

I'm interested in your and other thoughts on these questions

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
We still haven't had our test game of Baroque so this is still a tentative project. I have, however, been thinking about my possible order.

I'm looking to avoid the traditional stereotypes of Royalists in floppy hats and lobster potted Parliamentarians but am not sure what the current consensus is.

Am I correct in assuming both sides had cavalry in hats (EC9) and cavalry in helmet (EC10)?
Would units be likely to be mixed (EC9 & EC10)?

I assume that Pike were a mix of armoured (EC1) and unarmoured (EC2), in what proportions?
Did better units tend to have more armoured pike men or did the use of armour decline during the war?

For musketeers were a mix of caps and hats worn in the same unit or would it be one or the other, were hats most common?

And finally would dragoons wear a mix of morions and caps in the same unit?

Having been to a couple of "education" days with regards to ECW both sides wore very similar uniforms and head gear. A few books I have read said in the main the opposing sides were identified by the following:  Parliamentarians having a white cloth or paper/parchment visible on them and the Royalist had red.
At the start of the war a lot of regiments were kitted out with uniforms but as the campaign season progressed the appearance became more rag tag as clothing wore out, new troops were drafted in etc.

Quote from: paulr on 31 August 2017, 09:40:57 AM
Thanks Zippee

I was confused by the label on the website. Leon might need to tweak the text for EC28

I'm interested in your and other thoughts on these questions

You're welcome

I'm no expert on the ECW but I did a deal of web "research" before starting my project - I wrote a long post on one of these Baroque topics here about my design goals in painting my stuff.
Here it is:

Quote from: Zippee
No not really, I deliberately wanted to emphasis the 'issued' nature of clothing, so kept to a strict uniform tone. I think far too often we see really rag-tag impressions of civil war uniforms. Whilst I think battalia would often be polyglot in that they'd be composed of several separately raised and equipped companies, I also think that the usual (after the first muster) would be for very uniform and generic cloth issue to produce a semblance of uniformity - particularly at a distance. Unless I'm mistaken this seems to be the modern impression been given by re-enactors of the period. I did survey a bunch of websites before starting, to get a flavour and understand the way clothing worked. For instance monotone jacket and breeches, seems almost universal and white / unbleached for hose very common.

Additionally I wanted to draw them spiritually closer to the second half of the century - people seem to have little issue with general uniformity post civil war. Hence the uniform black hats and white hose and buff belts, thematically that ties them in towards the later WSS uniforms. I wanted the 'look' to say "hey, we're trying to be modern here".

I also (as I usually do these days) kept to a limited palette across both armies - so all bread bags and belts are the same buff, all uniforms are one of the same 6 colours (with grey equalling the rest combined), all hats, hose, shoes, boots, armour are the same, all uniforms have white collars and cuffs, the sashes are uniform tawny or scarlet (yes I know Parliament should be varied but the single colour ties them together), all charges either terracotta or blue (not sure why blue, I've seen them painted that way and it stands out nicely which is good enough for me

But mostly I just wanted to emphasise the colour distinctions between otherwise identical blocks of troops - so from the other side of the table, you can point and say "the blue unit" whilst at the same time making them all look cohesive on the table.

I think that hat v lobster / cavalier v roundhead stereotype / myth has long since been debunked. As Skywalker says there doesn't seem to be much difference between the armies - well not after the first musters.

To your specific questions, the Pendraken musketeers are all in either hat or cap (excepting the dragoons in hard cap or morion) so are good for both sides. The armoured pikes are in helmet, the unarmoured in hat and cap - armoured pikes dwindled as the war progressed but I used them to distinguish the 'elite' P&M units required by the lists. But you could ignore the armoured pikes entirely and be perfectly authentic.

As to horse - hats, hats with metal skull caps beneath and open face  and tri-barred lobsters would all be around. The limits in a sense are the Pendraken poses - half the helmet wearers are wielding pistols and thus much more like RE than GA.

As to mixed gear in a unit - bearing in mind Baroque units are 'battalia' which themselves were either composites of multiple companies or sub sets of larger companies I think uniformity of gear would be as irregular as it always has been. However I preferred to maintain uniformity in my basing, partly because it feeds my OCD and partly because I think when representing 500 men trying to look like a unit with 20+ figures it works best if they are in the same kit and colours.

From what I saw in my 'research' the cap was by far and away the most common headgear for infantry - however hats just look so damn cool  :D

Dragoons - I was surprised that half the dragoons came in a morion, it seemed a tad fanciful to me but I used them anyway. I'd have thought hat or cut down 'roundabout' hat would be the most common. For uniformity of issue / wearing see above.

I posted this list of poses in a previous thread but it's pertinent here

Quote from: Zippee
EC05   Foot Command - 10 x Officer, helmet, breastplate, sword, 10 x Standard Bearer, helmet, 10 x Drummer, hat
EC01   Armoured Pike - 15 x Pike A, standing, helmet, 15 x Pike B, advancing, helmet,
EC02   Unarmoured Pike - 15 x Pike A - standing, hat, 15 x Pike B - advancing, cap
EC03   Musketeers, Cap - 15 x Musket A - firing, cap, rest, 15 x Musket B - loading, cap
EC14   Musketeers, Hat   - 15 x Musket A - firing, hat, rest, 15 x Musket B - loading, hat
EC28   Musketeers, Firing (no rest)   - 30x Musket A - Firing, hat (no rest)
EC36   Musketeer, Marching - 15 x Musket A - Marching, hat, rest, 15 x Musket B - Marching, cap, rest
EC37   Musketeer, Advancing - 15 x Musket A - Ready, hat (no rest), 15 x Musket B - Advancing, hat (no rest)
EC04   Dismounted Dragoons, Cap - 30 x Dragoon, cap, advancing
EC27   Dismounted Dragoons, Morion - 30 x Dragoon, morion, ready
EC08   Peasants - 15 x Peasant A - advancing with bill, 15 x Peasant B - advancing with fork
EC11   Cuirassier   - 1 x Officer, 1 x Standard Bearer, 1 x Trumpeter, 6 x Cuirassier, Sword, 6 x Cuirassier, Pistol
EC09   Cavalry, Hat, Sword -    1 x Officer, 1 x Standard Bearer, 1 x trumpeter, 6 x Horse A, hat, sword, 6 x Horse B, hat, sword
EC10   Cavalry, Helmet, Sword or Pistol - 1 x officer, 1 x Standard Bearer, 1 x trumpeter, 6 x Horse A, helmet, pistol, 6 x Horse B, helmet, sword
EC12   Mounted Dragoon - 1 x Officer, 1 x Standard Bearer, 1 x Drummer, 6 x Dragoon A, hat, carbine, 6 x Dragoon B, cap, carbine
EC06   Light Gun, Limber, Horses & Crew (2) - 2x Guns, 2x Limbers, 2x Horses, 2x Officers, 2x Ramrods, 2x Linstocks. 1x Drover
EC07   Medium Gun, Limber, Horses & Crew (2) - 2x Guns, 2x Limbers, 2x Horses, 2x Officers, 2x Ramrods, 2x Linstocks, 1x Drover

hope that helps

With all the usual caveats about my lack of deep knowledge (and the fact that I spend most of my time in the second and third Kingdoms) I offer the very general opinions:

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
We still haven’t had our test game of Baroque so this is still a tentative project. I have, however, been thinking about my possible order.

I’m looking to avoid the traditional stereotypes of Royalists in floppy hats and lobster potted Parliamentarians but am not sure what the current consensus is.

The typical, well kitted out horseman (the harquebusier) in all three kingdoms and both major sides had a lobster pot helm, buff coat, front and back plates. This turn out increased as the war progressed. Having heavier horses available was often the greater problem.

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
Am I correct in assuming both sides had cavalry in hats (EC9) and cavalry in helmet (EC10)?
Would units be likely to be mixed (EC9 & EC10)?

Yes and yes, particularly in early war.  Many of those in floppy hats wore a secrete, a iron or steel skull cap under. A broadsword stroke in the top of the head was a career ender.

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
I assume that Pike were a mix of armoured (EC1) and unarmoured (EC2), in what proportions?
Did better units tend to have more armoured pike men or did the use of armour decline during the war?

I don't know the proportions but at least the front rank being armored was typical. Much depended on pre-war kit with the Trained Bands in richer areas having better kit. The use of armor diminished during the course of the war (it did virtually nothing to protect against musket balls, so why carry all that extra weight). The tassets disappeared first, then the back plate. The helmet and front plate had greater utility so was probably worn by at least the front ranks through out the war (if available)

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
For musketeers were a mix of caps and hats worn in the same unit or would it be one or the other, were hats most common?

The brimmed hat was ubiquitous to the period so certainly the most available. While the Colonel might issue coat and breaches, headwear was individual. The brimmed hat is good for campaign (keeps the sun and weather off your face) BUT doing musket drill in one is cumbersome (probably why you see lots of turned up brims). The Monmouth and Montenaro where popular (since they did not get in the way and could be pulled over ears in cold weather).

Incidently, when a colonel bought cloth, I don't think he had uniformity in mind, just price. If his men where wearing ragged red and he got a good price on blue - instant "uniform" change. There was, IIRC, some sense that held that putting all the men in the same dress diminished their fighting spirt as individual warriors!

Quote from: paulr on 30 August 2017, 09:24:15 PM
And finally would dragoons wear a mix of morions and caps in the same unit?

I don't know enough about dragoons. Would quess that they may have wanted some sort of head protection and may not have been limited to just morions.

I work from the principal that there were NO dress regulations which gives you a great deal of scope. Like most periods (even now) combat soldiers wear what best works for them (they just have a huge variety of issued - or captured - kit to work from).

Again these are my totally non-scholarly opinions. If I had it to do over I would probably use Zippie's approach because I think uniform colors and poses look extremely good in 10mm.

Oops! Just posted over Zippie - sorry!

Because of my own brand of OCD, for anyone interested in how arms and equipment evolved during the course of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms a useful read is:
Peter Edwards - The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638-52.
Until reading this I had not realized how the size and number of horses available had such a major role in shaping the cavalry deployed in the various kingdoms..

Thanks Zippee & d_Guy very useful

Zippee, I had grabbed a copy of your very useful pose list hence my confusion on EC28

I am definitely inspired by your units however I'm thinking about mixing the poses a little while using uniform tones for jackets & breeches

I may also include a little more variety on bread bags, belts etc

Time to plan a detailed order :)

Any thoughts from others also welcome

Hi Paul,

Your plans sound good. Leather and canvas comes in so many shades you should get a lot of variety into your units.  There are not many examples I can think of of complete 'suits' of clothes being issued to soldiers in the ECW - the only one I can recall was suits of clothes in blew and red to Regiments in Oxford (1643) which seems to have included breeches, coats and montero caps. Otherwise breeches are rarely mentioned as a uniform item (do I recall a New Model Army ordnance calling for them to be of 'graye or some other good colour'? ) Coats are by far the most common item issued, but there is no automatic assumption that Regiments kept the same colour from one issue to another, nor that new recruits would always receive coats of the same colour. To represent this I often include a couple of coats of different colours to break up the uniformity of my Regiments. Also worth recalling that the Royalists in particular found themselves with many small regiments as the war progressed, and often combined them in the battlefield to produce a single standard unit.  Good luck!

Mollinary

Thanks Mollinary

I spent a pleasant evening juggling numbers and now have an order that I am fairly happy with :)

Much to my surprise and, I suspect, Leon's relief it is almost all full packs :o ;)
I need 2.5 packs of foot command and don't need limbers so will need special orders for the artillery

I haven't totalled the number of figures or the cost yet X_X

I totalled up the number of figures, nearly 1,400  :o :o :o :o
and the cost  X_X X_X X_X

I've revised the order, now less than 1,250 figures :) :-[
and the cost is only  X_X X_X
A couple more special orders will be needed for command for the Horse

17	Pike & Musket
16	Horse (4 Gallopers, 6 Trotters, 6 Reiters)
4	Dragoons
4	Commanded Shot
2	Forlorn Hope
3	Artillery
8	Generals

Just remembered I need some bits and pieces for a couple of camps

Now more than 1,250 but less than 1,300 figures :-$
and the cost is still only X_X X_X
A couple more special orders for bits for the camp :-[ :-[

Looks like your new painting table will be well used in the next few months then  ;)

Thank Fnord you're not doing it in 28mm :D

28mm is one scale I have never painted #:-S

I've started another solo test game and it has become obvious I don't know how to use Reiters in Baroque
So far one unit has been driven off the board by enemy Trotters and another has been badly out shot by a unit of Pike & Muskets X_X X_X

Do any Baroque players have any words of wisdom :-\

Use them as Massed units? They're still a bit rubbish but they can grind the opposition down...

Yes Massed would seem right to me also.

That said, although RE are included in the Parliamentarian early war list, I tend toward just using TR instead. When I think of Rieters I think more of TYW were they are massed and using continual pistol fire (caracol) to weaken the opponent before engaging. I can think of a few ECW cases were Caracol was used (or at least attempted) including at Tippermuir but I think it is rare. ( I am hardly an authority, however).

Zippie has much more experience with them, but until he comes along here is a thread about RE at the D&P forum:
http://impetus.ativiforum.com/t878-caracoling-massed-reiters

Hope this helps some.

Thanks d_Guy, that and some of the other threads definitely helped

Can I check I now understand Reiters correctly

Parliamentary Reiters cost 43 points and have the same base stats if massed or not, including VD. The changes if massed are:
- movement 2S rather than 2
- they get MM+2
- they get to fire a second time if they pass the discipline test
- they are on a double depth bases (I'm planning to use two bases rather than have two lots of figures)

Parliament get 2-8 Reiters massed or not...

I was thinking that you combined two Reiters to make a massed Reiter unit :-/

Another thought that has just occurred to me is to base at all the Reiters on double depth bases and use 3 ranks of figures...

This will give me 33% more massed units for the same number of figures, compared to two bases with two ranks :-\
If someone wants to use non-massed Reiters just note the exception...

Yes- that seems correct. Both RE and TR are larger but more compact than GA. Deciding to mass them is really more a tactical change than adding a larger number of men. The RE want to bring a sustained fire against a point in the enemy line so they deploy deeper in rank ( rather like the musketeers firing continual volleys by switching out the front rank). the RE don't want to move into contact until they have created a breech. The TR are doing a similar thing but trying to do as much damage with their pistols as they go in, breech or no breech.

I had been using a doubling in a few situations (the first interation of my house rules) but decided back in April to use the "pure" rulesas much as possible. Because I'm now using magnetic sabots I can configure units more easily so I would show an RE (massed) as having a front row of 6 figures (3 bases) and a rear row of the same. (I don't use masses of figures doing 10mm. Treat them as 28mm - easier on the budget - time and money :) ) a bit heretical I suppose.

In any event putting two units together to indicated massed is a simple visual indicator (particularly since base depth is not important).

I don't (usually) do battles in early war England so I don't feel constrained by the D&P army list.  I use TR in their place since, if they are not massed, they are doing roughly the same thing. I show TR as 4 figure front 4 figures rear. GA is shown as one rank (staggered) of 8 figures.
In cases where I have historically large units, I divide them into two smaller, but independent, units. Seems to work better so far.

The tactic of going in with sword and reserving pistols for use in melee (or pursuit) was winning historically and over the course of the wars it seems to have become the dominate tactic. I will admit that when your Point Blank Pistol fire causes permanent casualties and disorder it is fairly satisfying. The one and only time I tried a caracole it was a miserable failure.

Much still depends on what you are going game. I had said before that army lists set you up well for edgehill until probably Marston Moor, so lots of great action.

Really looking forward to seeing your project come to fruition.
- Bill

Sorry,

Was writing a book and missed your new post.

You may want to experiment with how effective the caracol is before deciding on massed RE as default. It might be easier to use a marker to indicate massed. A nice vignette of one fellow fiddling with a spanner while another fumbles in his kit for a third pistol (these are figures for Pendraken to consider  :) )

Quote from: paulr on 05 September 2017, 03:29:39 AM
Thanks d_Guy, that and some of the other threads definitely helped

Can I check I now understand Reiters correctly

Parliamentary Reiters cost 43 points and have the same base stats if massed or not, including VD. The changes if massed are:
- movement 2S rather than 2
- they get MM+2
- they get to fire a second time if they pass the discipline test
- they are on a double depth bases (I'm planning to use two bases rather than have two lots of figures)
Parliament get 2-8 Reiters massed or not...
I was thinking that you combined two Reiters to make a massed Reiter unit :-/

FWIW I think this is correct Paul, though in our first test game we were looking at Highlanders MM ratings rather than RE. The mass is per base not a combination of several separate bases.

Still inspired to eventually get some proper 3/4 armoured Curaissiers for the Marquis of Argyll's bodyguard, even if their existence is somewhat speculative  - The Covenanters need all the help they can get facing Montrose and friends  ;)

http://wiki.bcw-project.org/covenanter/horse-regiments/marquis-of-argyll-s-lifeguard

Quote from: paulr on 05 September 2017, 03:29:39 AM
Thanks d_Guy, that and some of the other threads definitely helped

Can I check I now understand Reiters correctly

Parliamentary Reiters cost 43 points and have the same base stats if massed or not, including VD. The changes if massed are:
- movement 2S rather than 2
- they get MM+2
- they get to fire a second time if they pass the discipline test
- they are on a double depth bases (I'm planning to use two bases rather than have two lots of figures)

Parliament get 2-8 Reiters massed or not...

I was thinking that you combined two Reiters to make a massed Reiter unit :-/

A common mistake - probably the most answered question on the Impetus/baroque forums is "are Baroque massed units like Impetus large units" to which the answer is "No (well not really)"

Another common meme is that RE(M) are a broken unit that is overpowerful for it's points - well why would you buy RE instead, the 2S is irrelevant as no-one tries to double move C class troops (well not after their first game anyway  ;D ) so they're a bargain compared to RE but I remain unconvinced they are broken. that said in the ECW you have very limited interactions, the Royalist GA are designed to roll over the RE and TR opposition (unless they are bolstered with hardened, veteran, motivated, etc). On the continent there is more variety and RE may have a better role.

I'll note d_Guy says I know more but I keep repeating ECW is not my thing, I'm no expert I have a wargamer's generalist knowledge, this is a peripheral period for me  8)

I did note in my solo games that RE(M) do seem overly good assuming you play it slow and steady and don't let them get Disordered by being cocky or sloppy!

Like you I'm not sure they're actively broken, mind.

I have kind of swung to thinking Dragoons are too good - they seem very, VERY shooty compared to a P&M unit, and not much worse at anything else. Perhaps reduce their VBU to 4 would be right?

Quote from: d_Guy on 05 September 2017, 05:39:41 AM
It might be easier to use a marker to indicate massed. A nice vignette of one fellow fiddling with a spanner while another fumbles in his kit for a third pistol (these are figures for Pendraken to consider  :) )

I'd agree - I did all 8 possible RE units from the lists but only bothered with 2 RE(M) units. Either use a dummy sabot base with/without some vignette models, shove two RE bases together or just identify them clearly as massed to your opponent and you're good to go IMO.

Quote from: d_Guy on 05 September 2017, 05:39:41 AM
You may want to experiment with how effective the caracol is before deciding on massed RE as default.

We already know how effective they are - they're speed bumps to lure the enemy GA off the table, unfortunately while the morale rules and 'withdrawal' options work really, really well there is no actual mechanism to force the GA to follow your withdrawing, err routing RE off the table as they should do.

Remember RE safety - withdrawal before you shoot your load!

Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 September 2017, 11:12:36 AM
I have kind of swung to thinking Dragoons are too good - they seem very, VERY shooty compared to a P&M unit, and not much worse at anything else. Perhaps reduce their VBU to 4 would be right?

That I would agree with - if they seem shooty compared to PM units that's not good, when they seem more cost effective as a shooty unit than T units that's a design flaw!

Not sure if a flat VBU reduction is the way to go but they need to be nerfed in some way - possibly a hefty MM/SM neg

Quote from: Zippee on 05 September 2017, 11:00:18 AM
I'll note d_Guy says I know more but I keep repeating ECW is not my thing, I'm no expert I have a wargamer's generalist knowledge, this is a peripheral period for me  8)

I was thinking more in terms of your knowledge and experience with the Impetus/Baroque rules systems. I think I have said before that for all intents and purpose you are one of the more lucid "help desks" for those rules (I think I even said somewhere that D&P should give you official recognition as such!)   :)

As to ECW, I hardly ever wander into England proper, so my knowledge is pretty meager.

Quote from: d_Guy on 05 September 2017, 01:20:07 PM
I was thinking more in terms of your knowledge and experience with the Impetus/Baroque rules systems. I think I have said before that for all intents and purpose you are one of the more lucid "help desks" for those rules (I think I even said somewhere that D&P should give you official recognition as such!)   :)

Aw shucks  :-[

Quote from: d_Guy on 05 September 2017, 01:20:07 PM
As to ECW, I hardly ever wander into England proper, so my knowledge is pretty meager.

That's a false statement I'm afraid

In context (and in period) "English" includes the entire British Isles and colonies like Virginia. Whatever fell under the Crown of the King of England - it is only in more recent times that the divisional nomenclature has become important, and only in ultra-modern times that such codification mixed with PC angst makes it inpolitic to refer to Ireland or Scotland as "England" - the rest of us don't make a big issue out of it, heck I come from a roman province, Northumbria, The Danelaw, Yorkshire or possibly England, Great Britain, the UK or Europe depending on how the crow farts - it's only a petty few that make it an issue. At the time (and for a long time after) "The English Civile War" meant a war between the King of England-and-whatever-else-he-ruled and his subjects.

Indeed, strange as it may seem the more fuss these little Scotlanders, Englanders, Northern Irelanders make the less united the UK seems to be. I don't include Wales because, as I was taught in Wales by a Welshman, Henry VIII, a Welsh king, united England and Wales in 1536, that's nearly 500 years ago. At that time Wales, like Italy before 1859 and Germany before 1871, was a geographical and cultural term. There never was a kingdom of Wales before that date. The first Welsh king to rule the whole of Wales was Henry VII, who had also become king of England. I was also born in Northumbria at the site of the battle of Brunanburgh. Maybe it's time for a Northumbrian Assembly to put the North on a par with the rest of this island and the chunk taken out of the other island.

Quote from: Zippee on 05 September 2017, 02:04:52 PM
Aw shucks  :-[

That's a false statement I'm afraid

the King of England

The King of England and of Scotland, the two being separate countries at the time.

Indeed the War might never have happened had we not had to send Jamie the Saxth South when the English so carelessly mislaid their own dynasty ;)

The Balkanization argument aside and one with which I agree, I have the same sense as Ithoriel. Scotland and England were completely different countries at the time each with their own king, parliament and dominant religion. It was the Tudor's mismanagement of assuring an heir that gave the two countries the same king from which flowed a cascade of problems.

I meant I have not much studied the battles fought south of the border.   ;)

Incidently I am from West (by G_d) Virginia and we still have an ongoing dispute about the exact location of the border with "East" Virginia (which is what they should be called since WE were the loyal government of Virginia!  :D)

Quote from: Ithoriel on 05 September 2017, 03:03:24 PM
The King of England and of Scotland, the two being separate countries at the time.

Indeed the War might never have happened had we not had to send Jamie the Saxth South when the English so carelessly mislaid their own dynasty ;)

Indeed he was King of both but the ECW was a civil war against the King of England* not the King of Scotland - they had their own trouble and strife  :D

*technically it was against the King of England's 'poor and ill advisors' aka Buckingham.

But linguistically England at the time (and until the 19th century when Britain or Great Britain began to be preferred - possibly because Victoria was quite sympathetic to the Scots and wanted to shy away from the smell of Cumberland) referred to all territory under the Crown. I see little in the documentation of the Stuart dynasty (apart from formal royal writs which tend to be repeated under both royal seals) that specifies the separate states, provinces and colonies of the state - it's all "England" in common parlance.

Oh and by the way it weren't no English dynasty (I think only Alfred can claim to have sired one of them) it was a an illegitimate usurpation of a half-breed dynasty, founded on treachery. It's sad that I was about to write that the last non-foreign king was Richard III - but of course he was basically French  ;D But then every king we've ever had prior to George I has arrived through invasion, even the English are invaders - but ending up with a bastard welsh dynasty, that's like the nadir, Scots, Dutch and Germans can only be an improvement after that ignominy  ;D

Quote from: Zippee on 05 September 2017, 06:43:53 PM
ignominy  ;D

Richard the Third the last true King of England?  There has to be a reason why he couldn't defend 'his' crown against the most laughably implausible pretender to the throne for a thousand years! Oh, yes, it was because he had no claim himself, and no-one, not even his oldest and best friends, were safe against his, entirely justified, paranoia! Anyone has to be better than that intelligent, ruthless, capable, but totally untrustworthy and, ultimately, undeserving, fraud.
Anyone plausibly descended from Boudicca?  :D

Mollinary

Quote from: mollinary on 05 September 2017, 07:22:05 PM
Richard the Third the last true King of England?  There has to be a reason why he couldn't defend 'his' crown against the most laughably implausible pretender to the throne for a thousand years! Oh, yes, it was because he had no claim himself, and no-one, not even his oldest and best friends, were safe against his, entirely justified, paranoia! Anyone has to be better than that intelligent, ruthless, capable, but totally untrustworthy and, ultimately, undeserving, fraud.
Anyone plausibly descended from Boudicca?  :D

Mollinary

He was rather bad at picking men for key posts, no denying it.

Thanks all :-\ ;)

I've finished my latest test game and very enjoyable it was :) A close win to the King's forces

I think I will go with defaulting the RE to massed as I'm already planning to base them in two ranks rather than one for the other mounted. I can use a marker if they are not massed.
How important in the rules is the extra base depth?

Quote from: Zippee on 05 September 2017, 11:00:18 AM
I'll note d_Guy says I know more but I keep repeating ECW is not my thing, I'm no expert I have a wargamer's generalist knowledge, this is a peripheral period for me  8)

So how many figures do you paint for a non-peripheral period :o :o :o

Quote from: d_Guy on 05 September 2017, 01:20:07 PM
I was thinking more in terms of your knowledge and experience with the Impetus/Baroque rules systems. I think I have said before that for all intents and purpose you are one of the more lucid "help desks" for those rules (I think I even said somewhere that D&P should give you official recognition as such!)   :)

Seconded :)

Quote from: mollinary on 05 September 2017, 07:22:05 PM
Richard the Third the last true King of England?  There has to be a reason why he couldn't defend 'his' crown against the most laughably implausible pretender to the throne for a thousand years! Oh, yes, it was because he had no claim himself, and no-one, not even his oldest and best friends, were safe against his, entirely justified, paranoia! Anyone has to be better than that intelligent, ruthless, capable, but totally untrustworthy and, ultimately, undeserving, fraud.
Anyone plausibly descended from Boudicca?  :D

Mollinary

No one had any valid claim left by then, so last man standing wins! If there ever even was such a thing that didn't rest on the same "I'll stab anyone who disagrees" basis, anyway.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 September 2017, 07:00:42 AM
No one had any valid claim left by then, so last man standing wins!

Apart from Edward V of course.

Still based on "I'm King because of relatives stabbing people", mind. And he was already dead to clear the way for the Franco-Welsh-ish so evidently not that strong a claim ;)

Ooo, however - all discussion of government and rights to the throne is now defunct.

Arthur's back, so she renders anything else moot due to a water sword!

http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/schoolgirl-finds-four-foot-sword-419611#ICID=sharebar_facebook (http://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/schoolgirl-finds-four-foot-sword-419611#ICID=sharebar_facebook)

"Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

:D :D :D

You been reading my Facebook threads again! Last thing I copied was:
Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Quote from: paulr on 06 September 2017, 01:24:52 AM
How important in the rules is the extra base depth?

Paul, off the top of my head the extra base depth has negligible affect (only the front is standardized). There is a slightly greater chance of interpenetration when maneuvering and, if pushed back, a greater chance of contacting and disrupting a friendly unit. Basically just takes up more physical space. To the plus (I think) a massed RE can pivot to flank (or rear) in place. It may even have all around defensive fire but I don't remember for sure.

Other thread comment cause me to reflect on this question,
Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

Quote from: paulr on 06 September 2017, 01:24:52 AM

So how many figures do you paint for a non-peripheral period :o :o :o

Hmm I think Ancients https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681592395440/ is non periphery as is Napoleonic https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681351715401/ although to be fair my 10mm collection is just an addendum to the 6mm (must get round to the photo record at some point).

Actually I just like collecting stuff - that's my why my WWII RN collection started with some capitals, cruisers and a handful of destroyers and ended with well, err the RN 40-43 basically, although I did cut things like Flower class corvettes down to samples of 16 or so.  :D

I never said I was sane  :-

Quote from: d_Guy on 06 September 2017, 03:19:44 PM
Paul, off the top of my head the extra base depth has negligible affect (only the front is standardized). There is a slightly greater chance of interpenetration when maneuvering and, if pushed back, a greater chance of contacting and disrupting a friendly unit. Basically just takes up more physical space. To the plus (I think) a massed RE can pivot to flank (or rear) in place. It may even have all around defensive fire but I don't remember for sure.

Agreed, base depth is of little impact and in many cases flexible and optional. So long as you can clearly tell a RE(M) from a RE on the table somehow, then I wouldn't lose sleep about it

Quote from: d_Guy on 06 September 2017, 03:19:44 PM
Other thread comment cause me to reflect on this question,
Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

Neither: Princess Bride for the win obviously!

Quote from: Zippee on 06 September 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Hmm I think Ancients https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681592395440/ is non periphery as is Napoleonic https://www.flickr.com/photos/zippee/collections/72157681351715401/ although to be fair my 10mm collection is just an addendum to the 6mm (must get round to the photo record at some point).

Actually I just like collecting stuff - that's my why my WWII RN collection started with some capitals, cruisers and a handful of destroyers and ended with well, err the RN 40-43 basically, although I did cut things like Flower class corvettes down to samples of 16 or so.  :D

I never said I was sane  :-

Or solvent?! Sounds like you're single handedly keeping the lead business afloat :D

Quote from: mollinary on 05 September 2017, 07:22:05 PM
Richard the Third the last true King of England?  There has to be a reason why he couldn't defend 'his' crown against the most laughably implausible pretender to the throne for a thousand years! Oh, yes, it was because he had no claim himself, and no-one, not even his oldest and best friends, were safe against his, entirely justified, paranoia! Anyone has to be better than that intelligent, ruthless, capable, but totally untrustworthy and, ultimately, undeserving, fraud.
Anyone plausibly descended from Boudicca?  :D

Mollinary

Ah good, someone's being taking the Tudor propaganda pills I see  :D

Everything after the "oh yes" is referring to Henry isn't it?

A bit slow rising to the bait, chaps!  :D  :D  That said, Henry might have done all those things, but Tricky Dickie beat him to it!   By the way, if you think the stuff is all Tudor propaganda, have a look at Dominic Mancini.

Mollinary

I find the Tudors a bit boring.




*retires behind specially prepared sanger

Quote from: fsn on 06 September 2017, 04:56:09 PM
I find the Tudors a bit boring.

*retires behind specially prepared sanger

d

Funnily enough, so do I!

I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment :D

For my money, whilst no one comes out well, Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

Quote from: fsn on 06 September 2017, 04:56:09 PM
I find the Tudors a bit boring.




*retires behind specially prepared sanger

The crisps they made were nice

Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 September 2017, 05:04:02 PM
I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment :D
Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

You cannot be serious!  People were saying he had murdered the princes before the end of 1483, when no-one had even heard of Henry Tudor. Any space behind that Sanger, fsn?

If you're going to pin the blame on someone, pin it early!

...and say it over and over again.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 September 2017, 06:29:31 PM
If you're going to pin the blame on someone, pin it early!

Well, given they disappeared, I think we have to try and pin it on  someone. I  prefer the first suspect with both the motive and opportunity myself!

Thanks Zippee & d_Guy

Quote from: d_Guy on 06 September 2017, 03:19:44 PM
Which is the better work for quotes, "Holy Grail" or "Life of Brian"?

"You don't need to follow anyone! You're all individuals."

I'm not.

Quote from: mollinary on 06 September 2017, 05:16:25 PM
Any space behind that Sanger, fsn?

Sorry, did I say sanger? I meant sangria. Sure. Pull up a glass and settle in.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 September 2017, 03:57:23 PM
Or solvent?! Sounds like you're single handedly keeping the lead business afloat :D

Sadly my lead boats keep sinking - lead's not good at floating it seems  :P

Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 September 2017, 05:04:02 PM
I did four years worth of Tudor era history. Not sure I disagree with that assessment :D

For my money, whilst no one comes out well, Richard gets a very bad press for nothing more than propaganda purposes. It was Henry wot likely done the blag!

Yeah I did the same period at UNI - I was particularly impressed how the second year special subject title changed from "Richard III and the succession crisis" when I signed up for it to "Richard III and his Usurpation of the Crown" by the time term started. That caused a few heated debates but the bigot of a lecturer was well and truly pinned to the Tudor's as saviour's of the Realm nonsense.  ;D

No one comes out well by modern ethical standards but the murder of the princes was far from the most heinous act under the Plantagenets and there is precedence for similar actions all the way back to Alfred. Richard just gets a special mention in the Big Black Tudor Book of Plantagenet Crime. If Henry hadn't been so desperate to cement some kind of legitimacy to his usurpation then the matter would probably be all but lost from the historical record instead of some bleak highlight of infamous treachery.

But the Tudor dynasty is a string of disasters - just happens to be fronted by possibly the most famous king we have (famous for being a duplicitous philanderer - these days we'd call him Boris and send him to the FO) and even the success of Elizabeth (mostly due to advisors like Cecil and others in reality) failed in the production of an heir and overall the position of England as a political power in Europe slipped backwards - salvaged only by nibbling away at Spain's success in the New World, something that would only really start to bring real wealth under the Stuarts. Tudors, my vote for the least successful dynasty we've ever had - but the one best served by its propaganda machine.

Well, at least English began generating literature worth reading!

Quote from: mollinary on 06 September 2017, 06:49:20 PM
Well, given they disappeared, I think we have to try and pin it on  someone. I  prefer the first suspect with both the motive and opportunity myself!

Henry has double the motive, and may well have had the means...

All the rumours of their possible death under Richard start and end with Henry Tudors doctor, who was coincidentally the last person to probably have seen them, and passed the "information" to Mancini to write the propaganda sheet that justified French intervention on Henry's part to seize the throne... with them alive, Henry has no justification for an invasion, let alone one justification for enough foreign support to succeed; he needs both the Princes AND Richard out the way so it's very much in his interest for them to disappear (preferably in murky enough circumstances to cast massive doubt on Richard), and he certainly appears to have had people in place to achieve this.

Assuming the good doctor (or other agent, there's no shortage of side switching treachery all through the period) didn't finish them off early, Tyrell may well have knocked them off 1486 under Henry's direction not Richards :D

Ofc there's actually no evidence for anyone murdering them at all, and as Zippee says if it wasn't for the Tudor propaganda machine it'd likely just be written off as an "eh, whatever, we dunno" but it's used a linchpin of the regime change, so it's the c15th equivalent of 45 minute WMD's :D

QuoteFSN - Sadly my lead boats keep sinking - lead's not good at floating it seems

You just need more lead, eventually one will float, I'm sure of it.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 September 2017, 10:51:34 AM
You just need more lead, eventually one will float, I'm sure of it.

Or turn into gold, either equally likely.

If it turns into lead it's mine ;)

Quote from: ianrs54 on 07 September 2017, 11:51:56 AM
Or turn into gold, either equally likely.

well if they keep sinking in the same place - eventually one will not be able to sink I guess.

if they turn to gold I guess we just change rules and start a Pulp game based on Bear Island

just to be clear this was 'turn to gold AND sink' wasn't it?

I built my battleship on a swamp, and it sank. Do I built another, and it sank. I built a third, it capsized and then sank. But the fourth battleship stayed afloat! And that's what you get, strongest battleship in England!

Have you considered the 4th is resting on the other three?

If I see further, I stand on the shoulders of battleships come before?

Making sure this thread 'stays in the room' ;)

We played the first half of our group test game of Baroque last night
There was much laughter and banter during the game which is always a good sign :)

The horse on both wings have clashed and both sides left wings are in trouble X_X
The infantry centers are still slowly advancing, the forces of the King had initially held back between two gentle hills but are now moving up to support their horse

I was umpiring and commanding the Parliamentary right wing. I made a couple of rules mistakes :-[

• units firing should always roll at least 1 dice so the Parliamentary artillery missed out on one roll
• ranges are measured from the center of the firing unit, not nearest point, one unit of P&M got a bit better opportunity fire into some passing Trotters

I have a couple of questions for the more experienced Baroque players.

1. One of the Royalist Galloper units charged a unit of my Reiters which passed its test and bravely counter charged. As expected my Reiters lost the melee and retreated straight back (not directly away from the Gallopers which were at a slight angle and offset). The Gallopers pursued toward the centre of my retreated Reiters but because of the offset they contacted a different unit of Reiters and promptly beat them in melee. The new unit of Reiters retreated and ended up further back than the first unit of Reiters.

When the Gallopers pursued again they contacted the first unit of Reiters and a third melee was fought. The Gallopers had taken some hits in the previous melees and my Reiters rolled well and the Gallopers rolled badly on their cohesion test and were eliminated.

Did we get this right? It seems to model the loss of control of Royalist horse but seems a little strange to those us used to one round of melee per turn :-\

2. We used the 'Preparing Terrain' rules to set up terrain and we all noticed two things:

• there was very little terrain; a couple of gentle hills and a 4BU length of hedge, although this may have been historic
• the 'second' player could move most of the terrain around, he had rolled a 4

How have others found the 'Preparing Terrain' rules

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
Making sure this thread 'stays in the room' ;)

Good luck with that  :D

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
We played the first half of our group test game of Baroque last night
There was much laughter and banter during the game which is always a good sign :)

Sounds like a good first game - regardless of rules. Never worry about getting all the rules right, it's the flavour and general process that's important.

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
1. One of the Royalist Galloper units charged a unit of my Reiters which passed its test and bravely counter charged. As expected my Reiters lost the melee and retreated straight back (not directly away from the Gallopers which were at a slight angle and offset). The Gallopers pursued toward the centre of my retreated Reiters but because of the offset they contacted a different unit of Reiters and promptly beat them in melee. The new unit of Reiters retreated and ended up further back than the first unit of Reiters.

When the Gallopers pursued again they contacted the first unit of Reiters and a third melee was fought. The Gallopers had taken some hits in the previous melees and my Reiters rolled well and the Gallopers rolled badly on their cohesion test and were eliminated.

Did we get this right? It seems to model the loss of control of Royalist horse but seems a little strange to those us used to one round of melee per turn :-

Hard to be certain of the details (especially the direction of retreat) but in essence that sounds right. You complete all the actions and resulting pursuits and melees of one unit. I suspect the GA rolled badly on the third combat, more likely would be to be ground to a halt by the RE. Actually that is more likely against TR, against RE  the GA were unlucky not to just sweep them away  ;D

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
2. We used the 'Preparing Terrain' rules to set up terrain and we all noticed two things:

• there was very little terrain; a couple of gentle hills and a 4BU length of hedge, although this may have been historic
• the 'second' player could move most of the terrain around, he had rolled a 4

How have others found the 'Preparing Terrain' rules

Never used them - they're a tournament tool so of little interest to me. That said not much terrain and what there is mostly to the flank is right for most ECW actions I think.

Hi Paul,
Sounds like your crew enjoyed themselves with the rules and look forward to the culmination next week.

I can't add much to what Zippee has posted. As I invision the situation you describe with your Gallopers, the way you had it play out seems correct. Incidently, in my experience they often get a second melee' and occasional a third, a fourth would be exceedingly rare. What you describe is similar to my re-fight of Benburb, where the Anglo/Irish horse effectively turned the Irish flank with a chain pursuit.

Like Zippee I don't use the terrain placement rules, working from scenarios only.

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
The horse on both wings have clashed and both sides left wings are in trouble X_X

This sort of thing is very common in battles of the period. At Nasby, I think, the same thing occurred and the battle pivoted counter clockwise.
If you can pick up a copy of Burne & Young's "The Great Civil War", it gives a quick overview with clear descriptions of the battles. It came out in the 1950's (I think) but still a great read.

Quote from: paulr on 16 September 2017, 09:09:57 PM
...It seems to model the loss of control of Royalist horse but seems a little strange to those us used to one round of melee per turn

I agree, I think it models the period well. The pursuits completely change the complexion of the game so that the best laid plans quickly go out the window. Adding "friction" is want gamers now call it. I call it fun! Particularly in solo play where things can easily become boring. Incidently Irregular foot - Highlanders for example - can go off on these happy little excursions although usually harder for them to catch the fleeing enemy.

The only problem with the GA pursuing into the sunset trope is that it doesn't happen in the game.

They pursue as long as an enemy unit is on the table but if the enemy withdraws or routs, they suddenly stop and wheel into the centre. . .

It really breaks the verisimilitude and requires some kind of pursue the baggage / race off the table house rule.

We are experimenting with something based off of withdraw but requiring success so stop pursuing. It's hard to find the middle ground between straitjacket and exploitable ability though, so I understand why it's not in the rules  :D

True, it was that very occurance that caused the aforementioned Anglo/Irish horse to pull up and threaten the Irish flank. Often, however, my pursuit gets checked by melee or fails to catch the fleeing unit.

In Mollinary's For King and Parliment rules, the horse fall into pursuit mode and have to be rally tested out of it. Failing this, unless stopped  by an enemy unit they will run right off the table top. Sounds like you are moving toward a similar implementation.

Had I had that condition at Benburb, the coalition horse would have continued until they reached the Irish Sea, the Irish would not have had to split their force to deal with the problem and the outcome may have been different.

Thanks for the feedback Zippee and d_Guy

I was pretty sure we got the cavalry interactions right, as I said felt strange compared to most rule sets that allow only one melee per turn, but gave a result with a sensible narrative

A couple of times we had to stop ourselves doing group moves as in DBX ;D ;D

I suspect we will use scenarios or 'preset' terrain most of the time and will have to get use to lower terrain density

From the solo games I played it tended to be one biggish piece (usually a hill), a couple of smaller pieces off to a side, and... that was it. Seemed to match up with my limited knowledge of the periods battlefields!

I may be misremembering (haven't played for ages), but would an "easy" fix be a forced roll on the pursuit distance table? If it takes you off table you're off as if retired so VBU towards break point, if not it will probably stuff up an easy turn in to hit the flank of your opponents main line?

Another successful session saw a win to the forces of the King in our test game

All have enjoyed the rules so far but are keen to play another game before committing to them

We are back to the Solomons next week but the following week should see another Baroque test game, north of the border this time

If that goes well it will be time for me to place an order

After nearly a month we got a chance to have another successful test game of Baroque :!!

Once again the time flew and much fun was had by all :)

Afterwards we had a very thoughtful conversation about how many different rule sets we regularly play :-\

This has me wondering how many rule sets others regularly play, so I have created a poll http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16698.msg244844.html#msg244844 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16698.msg244844.html#msg244844) and look forward to your feedback

I am now left pondering, do I add a new period that requires a new rule set, or do I look at a new 'sub-period' within an existing rule set :-\ :-\ :-\

I'm attempting to have one set of rules to cover a particular period. For example, Honours of War for the Seven Years War. But I can use these rules for the AWI with some tweaks, should I so wish, or for purely Imagi-Nations games. So for me sub-periods are the way to go it would seem.

For the second test game "north of the border" scenario I used the existing bases I had from our initial Inverlochy refight and added cavalry wings to each side as I wanted to see how lancers and curiassiers (the somewhat mythical Duke of Argyll's bodyguard  ;)) worked. I set the timing of the encounter a week later than Inverlochy and some miles to the south near Dunstaffange castle on the road to Oban. For the actual cavalry I "borrowed" some units from DGuy's Fyvie scenario.  

The game itself went pretty well for the Covenant trotters, who managed to either hold or see off the dashing Royalist gallopers under the command of Nathanial Gordon and Sir Thomas Ogilvy respectively. The Duke's bodyguard was held in reserve to back up the inexperienced Covenant infantry who held the centre, though they were never called into action. Instead the large contingent of Argyll's own "regularly" armed foot regiment valiantly held off Montrose's main attack, seeing off two units of tough highland "warbands".

In the end the Royalists decided that they would retire, leaving the Duke and his followers in possession of the field.

As you can tell I am fairly keen on this period and would like to take it further but as Paul has pointed out we had a fairly long discussion after the game which identified that our band of 5 or 6 regulars already play around 9 set of rules on a fairly regular basis. Given that we do not play every week and that some games take more than an evening to complete the prospect of introducing yet another period was countered by some valid points. These were that we would not get to play any one period more than once or twice a year and as we use so many different rules that trying to remember how to use them all correctly was becoming a real issue.

So we all went off to have a bit of a rethink and Paul has put up a very interesting poll: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16698.msg244844.html#msg244844

From the results so far looks like we are at the top end of number of different periods played.

So stay tuned to see if its ECW (I follow DGuy's blog myself and am sorely tempted to follow his lead get some Scots ECW stuff even if it means playing small games on my table at home  :) ) or more AWI (French are being considered - another period that I always really enjoy playing with V&B wing scale).

I, obviously, enjoyed your report, Pierre. The more folks out on the Fringe the better!  :)

As it turns out, Argyll (who was still a Marquis at the time) had both a Lifeguard of Horse and Foot, so your conjecture Is dead on. Here’s the best part, just about everybody had some sort of retinue of factors, friends and clansmen so you are given a great deal of scope for your imagination. Like you, I rather like this time and place.

As much as I like Baroque, I would like it much better if I could play it in a group setting. It certainly works well enough solo but I am finding that For King and Parliament is a much better fit for me in that regard. As you have probably seen, it is grid based which allows it to easily scale up and down. I have become quite happy playing on a 3x4 foot battle mat.

One of the best things with FK&P for solo play is the playing card system that allows you to come and go with the game and easily “read” exactly what is going on by the spread of cards on the table, a real help when you don’t have an opponent to remind you.

I will stay tuned and hope to see you up north of the border. :)

Thanks again for organising an interesting and enjoyable game. The 'dashing Royalist gallopers' and 'tough highland "warbands"' weren't quite as strong as we expected ;D

I think there were two issues discussed as we packed up after the game

The main issue was the number of rule sets and knowing the rules well enough not to be often searching in the rules or making 'beginner's mistakes' through not understanding them

The second issue was that with the various forces we have any new troops won't get to see the table that often

I've just done a rough count and between us we probably have about 60 different armies and navies across 11 periods :o :o :o

Quote from: d_Guy on 22 October 2017, 08:08:51 PM
I, obviously, enjoyed your report, Pierre. The more folks out on the Fringe the better!  :)

As it turns out, Argyll (who was still a Marquis at the time) had both a Lifeguard of Horse and Foot, so your conjecture Is dead on. Here's the best part, just about everybody had some sort of retinue of factors, friends and clansmen so you are given a great deal of scope for your imagination. Like you, I rather like this time and place.

As much as I like Baroque, I would like it much better if I could play it in a group setting. It certainly works well enough solo but I am finding that For King and Parliament is a much better fit for me in that regard. As you have probably seen, it is grid based which allows it to easily scale up and down. I have become quite happy playing on a 3x4 foot battle mat.

One of the best things with FK&P for solo play is the playing card system that allows you to come and go with the game and easily "read" exactly what is going on by the spread of cards on the table, a real help when you don't have an opponent to remind you.

I will stay tuned and hope to see you up north of the border. :)

I am probably beyond the fringe already DGuy ;) I did take some pictures of the game so I will write up  a battle report when I get the chance.

I will acquire a copy of FK&P once they are published for sure. I like the card activation system you use - - Maybe not for everyone though we also use it the WW1 games we play and it gives good results there.  

Baroque works well but the combat outcomes can be a bit eyeopening sometimes.

Thanks for correcting Argyll's title, Maybe I watched Liam Neeson in Rob Roy once too often - I am pretty sure Argyll is portrayed a Duke in that film, but that's late C17 early C18?

Anyway we will see what a bit of further debate produces  8)

Looking forward to the report and pics! Glad you’re beyond the Fringe  :)

The title thing is perplexing, particularly for an American (and Leveller that I am  ;D). It’s hard enough tracking what’s going on without the bl**dy title and name changes. Very much liked “Rob Roy”. The Duke of Argyll was probably “our” Argyll’s son or possibly grandson since I think the movie was set sometime before the 1715 rising.

The random activation of brigades (or commands in Baroque) is excellent in solo play - people in multi-player games would likely not be to fond of it. :)

Good luck.

We quite enjoy the random activation of brigades, both in Baroque and If the Lord Spares Us for WW I

The active player is often interacting with a couple of players on the other side. The rest of us take the opportunity to offer 'helpful advice' and commentary on the outcomes ;) ;D