Pendraken Miniatures Forum

For King and Parliament publishing update:
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtssAOTqVJxk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C86513906de514ea92a2108d5724a8847%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636540586791170667&sdata=0p02FBwN29fILu5xzfoRmZweGp6LSs0zso4YYP686Q0%3D&reserved=0

Wargames Illustrated recent vid interview with Simon Miller (who is quick to mention that he is the co-designer with our on Mollinary).

Thanks Bill,

Simon sure is a smooth talking Bar Steward!  Surely Hollywood beckons?


Andrew

An interesting interview with several mentions of 10mm and even Pendraken :)

Thanks for the link and an interesting interview, with lots of mentions of 'scales' other than 28mm. Really looking forward to seeing the game at Salute and hopefully picking up the rulebook if it's ready by then.

Yes, good interview and great looking 28mm Bicorne miniatures.  Never been keen on grid based wargames, but may have to give this a try.

Beautiful miniatures, indeed. He mentioned using chits(?) instead of playing cards for the smaller scales but could probably try using smaller sized playing cards. Here's a link to some of the more reasonably priced ones available (there's a Coca-Cola set elsewhere for £6 odd!) :-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW)

Quote from: Westmarcher on 13 February 2018, 10:29:59 PM
Beautiful miniatures, indeed. He mentioned using chits(?) instead of playing cards for the smaller scales but could probably try using smaller sized playing cards. Here's a link to some of the more reasonably priced ones available (there's a Coca-Cola set elsewhere for £6 odd!) :-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW)

I have used half and quarter sized cards as well, but found when I was using a 3"grid for my 6mm figures, that chits for activations and cards for combat worked very well.

Mollinary

What are the chits like? (what kind of chits were used?)

Simon sells sets of 80 chits, numbered form ace to 10, together with court cards, and some ammo markers, on his web shop bigredbatshop. They are 2mm mdf.  I just  bung them in a cup or bag, and draw out at need. I have two sets, one coloured red and one blue, using felt  tip pens. They are less obtrusive than the cards, but serve the purpose of marking the last draw on a unit, so you can return later and still see what the highest draw was.

Mollinary

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0693/1121/products/Chits_of_war_1024x1024.jpg?v=1421927644)

from https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/collections/all/products/chits-of-war (https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/collections/all/products/chits-of-war)

Quote from: Westmarcher on 13 February 2018, 10:29:59 PM
Beautiful miniatures, indeed. He mentioned using chits(?) instead of playing cards for the smaller scales but could probably try using smaller sized playing cards. Here's a link to some of the more reasonably priced ones available (there's a Coca-Cola set elsewhere for £6 odd!) :-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Keyring-Plastic-Useful-Travel/dp/B00IFNZ4D2/ref=pd_cp_21_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MQAB0ZK4GSVHP216DESW)

I have used some very small playing cards with To the Strongest. The chits look better and are less intrusive.

Quote from: Leman on 14 February 2018, 05:16:28 PM
The chits look better and are less intrusive.

While I like the drama of playing cards (Texas Hold'em, that sort of thing), chits have proven a better way to go for my 10mm games. I use 100mm squares and tried using small cards first but in addition to being hard to handle they still take up to much surface area. The other plus, as you mentioned, is chits are much less intrusive and you don't have to take them up for a quick photo during the action.

Happily, card, chits, or even d10 dice can be used in TtS! or FK&P. Depending on which are used (and specifically for what) probabilities change slightly (which is a bonus I think).

I too like using the cards as it's damned quick. I've had no problem tracking units on a board with normal sized playing cards, as I just put them off table, in line with the troops and in descending order. Works for me.

Obviously not played FKAP but have played TtS.

We did use cards and they were ok but I think for me it will work better with a D10 and number tokens.  I feel it will be just as fast and the tokens will take up less space than the cards and visually will look better.

Just my thoughts....also there are 20 sided D10s which will add to the random factor.

Although I am no mathematical expert it should be remembered that a D10 will give random numbers each turn, whereas with a pool of chits or cards the chances of a particular number coming up diminishes as it is taken from the pool and placed, ie once a 2 has been placed there are only 7 more 2s in the pool, but 8 of each of the other numbers. This gives rise to considerations about whether to chance taking another chit or not, whereas with a dice roll the chance of getting the same number is the same with each roll.

On the other hand, and respecting Leman's perfectly logical point, if mathematics applied to wargames I'd get far fewer 1 rolls in critical melees.

Purely psychosomatic. just think you roll 1 more often !

ianS

Sometimes I think you roll a one because you are thinking "I don't want to roll a one"  :)

In using cards and chits, as Leman points out, the odds change as the draw pool diminishes. Because the activation chits (or cards) remain visible during a turn, you can see what has been played and get a better idea about the chances of drawing certain numbers. I happen to like this aspect.

I did two blog posts (which I shamelessly offer below) on cards, chits and dice in FK&P:

On Card:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2017/11/25/a-dice-tower-for-cards/

And on th switch to chits:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2017/12/30/chittering/

In the test game of FK&P I watched one of the players after badly losing a series of combats with really low cards passed the deck to his playing partner and said "at least I've 'warmed' the deck up for you" ;D ;D ;D

Several times during the game decisions were made based on the players feel for what cards had already been drawn. It definitely gives the game a different feel.

Hello

I find rules where you have to divide the table into squares a monumental pain in the a**. Surely a tape measure is miles easier. I like un compilcated  rules but having to mark out squares is just impractical. My opinion only.

Jim.

Having played PBI before, I wasn't a fan of grid based games. However I find these rules work really well and are incredibly quick to play. No arguing whether the unit is a few millimetres out of range anymore, or how far a zone of control extends etc. Basically the squares sort that out for you. Now this sort of game is not to everyone's taste, but each to their own.

Hi Jim,
If you use a battle cloth or mat you only have to lay out the grid once (and you really only need to mark the corner points). While that does take some time to do a careful layout, it is reusable, so pretty much a one time cost. Playing a game without the need to measure is much much faster than having to measure multiple times in a turn imho.

Some folks put temporary corners in place for each game and that would get too fiddly for my tastes.

Sorry

Still not conviced. Dont like defacing my terrain just for one rule set. If you want a game with squares or hexes play a board game. It surely doesnt save that much time to play a game where you have to measure. Dont like to dis a set of rules but i have a set of to the strongest and they are not for me.

Jim

Really not trying to convince, just wanted to point out that not having to measure is likely a faster way to play. Grids and hexes are not everbody's cup of tea.

Looks like chits are the way forward for the smaller scales - although helping to fit in with smaller grids, miniature cards appear to be fiddly to handle (and shuffle?). However, one observation; whilst understanding the benefits of not having to measure, etc., I recently played another rules set which I have played in 28mm scale, 15mm scale (half measurements) and 10mm scale (40% measurements). To replicate this, I would surely need 3 different grid patterns. This would certainly make me think twice. I think if you would like to have the flexibility to play these rules in more than one scale, you will have to design your grid system to suit perhaps two (possibly three max?) scales. That is not to say, of course, that these are not good war-games rules (in fact, they sound quite intriguing). It's just a factor to bear in mind when marking your table cloth.

One option if using two scales would be to mark the squares for the larger scale and mentally divide into quarters for the smaller scale :-\

The test game I saw used terrain made up of one foot square carpet tiles and they mentally converted it in a six inch grid...

Also not trying to convince one way or another O:-)

Another option would be to only use the one true scale ;)

Quote from: paulr on 17 February 2018, 03:29:22 AM
One option if using two scales would be to mark the squares for the larger scale and mentally divide into quarters for the smaller scale :-

The test game I saw used terrain made up of one foot square carpet tiles and they mentally converted it in a six inch grid...

Also not trying to convince one way or another O:-)

Another option would be to only use the one true scale ;)

A good discussion   I am also not trying to convince, I play  games both with and without grids, but as co-author I thought I ought to step in to explain how I tackle it.   As d'Guy says, grids are not to everyone's taste, but there are a number of ways of doing them if you want to. The one grid fits two scales is one I have used, with the larger grid having the corners of squares marked, and when used with an imaginary smaller grid just using the eye to judge,.  As it happens, when I did it the figure scale remained the same (10mm of course) but the unit sizes doubled! I know Simon Miller has used this trick the other way round, having a grid marked with 150mm squares but using units that would fit 300mm.  Once the units are placed at the start of a game I found it remarkable how easy it was to adjust.   

My route to TtS and grids started with the board game Commands and Colours Ancients, which was grid based. I loved the game, and wanted the spectacle of turning it into a figure game. This I did using 6mm figures (sorry!), originally on th exams board itself, and then using more figures on  Kallistra hexes, and had a blast. .it reintroduced me to Ancients after a twenty five year gap durng the WRG 7+ Years.  I then saw Simon's TtS games at a number of shows, and finally tried it at one. I had a lot of fun, enough to buy the rules. Tried it at home and at the club using figures from 6-15mm and found it simple and quick to play but subtle and testing to master.  And it remained fun. That was when I had the light bulb moment that perhaps these rules could finally get my 10mm ECW on the table.  I should also point out it is actually unit size, rather than figure or individual base size, which is the key determinant as far as the grid goes. Still, as I said before, not for everyone.

In response to Jim I now have different battle mats with 10cm (4 inch), 15cm(6 inch) and 20cm(8 inch) grids, mainly because I also dislike marking out squares. I have also found the squares also come into their own when laying out terrain for scenarios where the maps often have one foot squares. 6 inch squares are great for this, but what about those scenarios that insist on 8'x6' or 7'x5' tables? this is one instance where the 20cm mat comes in. I find this works particularly well with 10mm and 6mm figures and a purpose made "12 inch" ruler, where each inch is 15mm in length. Works a treat. Currently fighting a very small FPW scenario using one from the Grant and Asquith book, where all the scenarios are 7x5. Consequently I am using my 15cm Square Bashing mat and cm instead of inches with They Died for Glory rules. Also I ignore the TDFG basing system. All my troops are on 25mm squares, and each base has the combat value of the old-style, originally denoted by the number of figures. Think I will probably start a new thread to pursue this idea.

Evening All

A basing question for Mollinary/D Guy:

Paul and I have agreed that FK&P are worth investing in when they come out next month. Looks like we will be using 15cm squares with 12cm wide bases for foot and horse units. We normally use 6x4 or 6x5 tables and looks like we will try chits rather than cards.  

I've been trying pull together a list of what PM (and other manufacturers  :-[ ) figures I might use for a Scots W3K (Montrose and Covenant) force. Meanwhile. in between painting AWI stuff and mowing his lawn, Paul is looking at getting a south of the border force (Parliament/Royalist/New Model) so a refight of Dunbar 1650 might be on the cards at some stage (hopefully with a better result to the Scots  ;) ).

We have both come up with lists totalling around 1200 figures  :o each using the following numbers per 12cm base based on earlier lists we were looking at originally for Baroque:

Pike and Musket unit 40 figures total, 24 Shot 16 Pike/command figures
Irregulars (Highland Clan) base 30 figures total
Dismounted Dragoons 20 figures total, 16 shot, 4 horse holders
Regular Cavalry 12 - 15 figures total
Artillery 1 Gun/3 - 4 crew per base

My question is would F&KP units use around the same number of figures per 12cm base or do we need to cut down our numbers a bit?

Thanks in advance for any guidance on this question.

If you are in UK/Europe stay safe and look out for the Beast from the East...looks very cold over there from what I saw on the TV news just before.

Cheers
Peter



   

Quote from: Leman on 15 February 2018, 10:06:07 AM
Although I am no mathematical expert it should be remembered that a D10 will give random numbers each turn, whereas with a pool of chits or cards the chances of a particular number coming up diminishes as it is taken from the pool and placed, ie once a 2 has been placed there are only 7 more 2s in the pool, but 8 of each of the other numbers. This gives rise to considerations about whether to chance taking another chit or not, whereas with a dice roll the chance of getting the same number is the same with each roll.

Now that is a very good point...so ideally you need 4 sets of chits numbered 1 to 10?

Quote from: pierre the shy on 02 March 2018, 07:51:11 AM
Evening All

A basing question for Mollinary/D Guy:

Paul and I have agreed that FK&P are worth investing in when they come out next month. Looks like we will be using 15cm squares with 12cm wide bases for foot and horse units. We normally use 6x4 or 6x5 tables and looks like we will try chits rather than cards.  
...
We have both come up with lists totalling around 1200 figures  :o each using the following numbers per 12cm base based on earlier lists we were looking at originally for Baroque:

Pike and Musket unit 40 figures total, 24 Shot 16 Pike/command figures
Irregulars (Highland Clan) base 30 figures total
Dismounted Dragoons 20 figures total, 16 shot, 4 horse holders
Regular Cavalry 12 - 15 figures total
Artillery 1 Gun/3 - 4 crew per base

My question is would F&KP units use around the same number of figures per 12cm base or do we need to cut down our numbers a bit?
...

Molllinary (the co-designer with Simon Miller) may be snowed in, so hopefully this is useful:

Both Baroque and FK&P assume roughly 500 man foot battalia (and all else realative to that). There is no required figure to unit ratio, pretty much what is aesthetically pleasing to you. Mollinary uses ratios similar to what you propose and they make the units look dense (which is accurate imho). I use about half that number, but I play on 10cm boxes.

Be aware that FK&P allows TWO units to be in a box (with specific rules for how that works). This means that your base depth needs to account for this possibility. This arrangement was brought forward from To The Strongest! where it is tactically neccessary.  The rules will likely say that the tactical formations of the c. 17th will probably limit its use. (I have found it useful for starting deployments).

Both Mollinary and I use sabots to assemble units out of smaller stands.

Incidently FK&P provides for three classes of artillery, Siege, Field, and Light. Light are represented by markers that travel with another unit. Frame Guns would be an example of the latter.

Quote from: Bunny on 02 March 2018, 08:45:38 AM
Now that is a very good point...so ideally you need 4 sets of chits numbered 1 to 10?

Ideally, SIX sets of 1 to 10 chits (or cards), 120 per side. Four sets would be minimum. But honestly, what ever you and your opponent agree on, imho.

The chits are used for both activation (which remain on the board until a player's turn is over) and for various types of resolution.
In play testing I used a number of different schemes (immediately returning the resolution chits to the draw bag, for example, and using the same chit set for both sides). Mollinary reports using chits for activation and cards for resolution. Each approach, obviously, effects the odds of a given draw.

Quote from: pierre the shy on 02 March 2018, 07:51:11 AM
Evening All

A basing question for Mollinary/D Guy:

Paul and I have agreed that FK&P are worth investing in when they come out next month. Looks like we will be using 15cm squares with 12cm wide bases for foot and horse units. We normally use 6x4 or 6x5 tables and looks like we will try chits rather than cards.  

I've been trying pull together a list of what PM (and other manufacturers  :-[ ) figures I might use for a Scots W3K (Montrose and Covenant) force. Meanwhile. in between painting AWI stuff and mowing his lawn, Paul is looking at getting a south of the border force (Parliament/Royalist/New Model) so a refight of Dunbar 1650 might be on the cards at some stage (hopefully with a better result to the Scots  ;) ).

We have both come up with lists totalling around 1200 figures  :o each using the following numbers per 12cm base based on earlier lists we were looking at originally for Baroque:

Pike and Musket unit 40 figures total, 24 Shot 16 Pike/command figures
Irregulars (Highland Clan) base 30 figures total
Dismounted Dragoons 20 figures total, 16 shot, 4 horse holders
Regular Cavalry 12 - 15 figures total
Artillery 1 Gun/3 - 4 crew per base

My question is would F&KP units use around the same number of figures per 12cm base or do we need to cut down our numbers a bit?

Thanks in advance for any guidance on this question.

If you are in UK/Europe stay safe and look out for the Beast from the East...looks very cold over there from what I saw on the TV news just before.

Cheers
Peter

Hi Peter,

D'Guy has given you a good run down so far, but, for what it is worth, this is my take.   Number of figures is entirely up to you, whatever you think looks good. My unit sizes are dictated by the the fact that twenty odd years ago I started basing on 1 1/2" squares with the intention of modifying Volley and Bayonet for the ECW and using three bases to a unit. I got a long way with the figures, but not far with the rules!  This means my basic unit size is 4 1/2" wide, plus an extra 10mm for the width of the lip on the sabots I use. So my total unit width is 5" or 125mm, so your 12cm Units are as near to mine as makes no difference. My foot units have about 40 figures, and the standard horse 15. My highlanders have 10-11 per base, so about 30. The dismounted dragoons 12-15 figures. The horse holder base is a marker in FK&P, and so is entirely separate. Mine has a single horse holder and 4-5 horses.

So, bottom line, your current plans are spot on for an army based like mine, but you can alter them as you see fit. The rules are designed for any scale of figures, so you have maximum flexibility. If you haven't got your armies yet, then you can choose a grid size appropriate to your table, and then size your units to fit. If you have your army then you can choose a grid size to suit that.  

I hope you enjoy the Rules when they come out, and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Mollinary


   

Quote from: Bunny on 02 March 2018, 08:45:38 AM
Now that is a very good point...so ideally you need 4 sets of chits numbered 1 to 10?

Hi Bunny,

Depends what you mean by a set?  The base set of rules, To the Strongest, use playing cards. Simon recommends each player has two standard packs, with the court cards removed - so a pack of 80. The chits he sells come in packs of 80.  Now, for a one on one game you will need two sets, one for each player. For multi player games, it works best if each player has his own set, but if you want players to play I. Sequence rather than simultaneously, then you can get away with two packs.  For FK&P you can use the same number. However, the introduction of shooting, and the innovation of drawing two cards hitting on 8+s for all the occasions where in TtS you draw one card hitting on a 6+, means you can get through the cards rather more rapidly than in TtS,. So, if you think this dramatically affects the odds as you get towards the end of your turn, you may wish to increase the number to 120.    As d'Guy says, I have got round this by using chits for activations, placing them next to Units, and cards for combat hits/saves etc. Placing them at the back of the table. I think it works better this way round with the smaller scales, but it is entirely a matter of personal taste.

Mollinary

Thanks for the replies on my number of figures question Mollinary and D Guy - very helpful indeed.

We haven't got any existing troops for this period yet, so we will have a chat during tonight's DBMM game to see what we do figures wise.

Cheers
Peter

Thanks Mollinary and d Guy much food for thought

As Peter mentioned we typically play on a 6x4 or 6x5 tables, so with a 15cm grid would get a grid 12x10 or 12x8. From the test game I saw this seems adequate, how does this compare to the recommended size in the rules?

Regarding grids - for Rommel I've found a 12cm grid works well with 10mm figures, and on a 4' deep table gives you 10 squares rather than 8 (with a 15cm grid). Can be useful if you want a slightly larger battlefield.

Quote from: paulr on 02 March 2018, 07:04:12 PM
Thanks Mollinary and d Guy much food for thought

As Peter mentioned we typically play on a 6x4 or 6x5 tables, so with a 15cm grid would get a grid 12x10 or 12x8. From the test game I saw this seems adequate, how does this compare to the recommended size in the rules?

Hi Paul,

As in TtS the 'standard' grid is 12 x 8. If you were looking to do a particular historical encounter, then the average box is about 100yds square.

Andrew

Thanks, I'll have a look at some maps of historic battles

Quote from: paulr on 03 March 2018, 06:50:21 PM
Thanks, I'll have a look at some maps of historic battles

Hi Paul,

Not unnaturally, I have looked at quite a few as we have play tested!   For the big ones, my Edgehill came in at 27 x 12, Naseby at 24 x 12.
Have yet to do Marston Moor, but it would be about 30-34 x 12. This would certainly be your largest

Hope this helps,

Andrew

It does sound a little larger than 12 by 8. I'm more interested in the early war western campaigns which had much smaller battles.

Thanks Mollinary, very useful, we could easily do a 24x10 grid  :)

For those that have not seen the announcement, For King and Parliament has been published and can be found at Simon's BigRedBatCave store.

Quote from: d_Guy on 23 March 2018, 12:43:21 PM
For those that have not seen the announcement, For King and Parliament has been published and can be found at Simon's BigRedBatCave store.

Thanks for this, Bill. Yes, it is quite true, much to our surprise it is up and running before SALUTE, and so is a new series fo markers for those who prefer mdf markers to show ammo and unit status.  As before, I will try and answer questions folks may have on here, or you can visit the To the Strongest forum, where there is a separate thread for 'For King and Parliament'.

Mollinary

Excellent - wish I could make it to Salute to see the demo.
I really believe the rules will become very popular.

I wanted to get an OK from Leon before doing a direct link
(Which he has graciously given):

For King and Parliament
https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/collections/all/wargames-rules

And no - I don't own stock :D
Just like how these have turned out.

Just ordered. I was lucky enough to proof read the rules and thought they looked pretty damned good to be honest. Can't wait to get my grubby mitts on them and then time to plan some Monmouthesque Rebellion games :)

Congratulations Mollinary a major achievement =D> =D> =D>

I can feel a trial game with our regular group rapidly approaching :) :)

Quote from: paulr on 23 March 2018, 07:56:54 PM
Congratulations Mollinary a major achievement =D> =D> =D>

I can feel a trial game with our regular group rapidly approaching :) :)

Thanks Paul!

If your regular group have played To the Strongest they should find the transition relatively simple, the biggest changes are in the command structure and the return fire mechanism.  And there will always be help available if you encounter problems!

Mollinary

Hello

Well now that the minor distraction is out of the way, attention can revert to the Renaissance and Fantasy versions  :P :P :P :P.

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

 :) :-bd

Ordered the pdf this morning. Waiting on delivery,  :!!

I ordered the PDF which Simon sent to me late last night NZ time. Mrs Shy got grumpy with me as I was trying to read them last night  ;)

Well worth the 10 quid investment I would say  :) I really like the C17 "period feel" that most of the pictures and play examples use. I think the authors should be very proud of their creation.

I'm sure Paul and I will be trying out a trial game soon. I imagine we will use the example battle in the rules (Battle of Montgomery 1644) since he has suitable Royalist and Parliamentary unit bases already.

Off to read up some more so I can understand the rule mechanics as we have not played To the Strongest and only seen one test game of FK&P, so gridded games are a new frontier for our group.       

Quote from: fred. on 24 March 2018, 06:59:11 PM
Ordered the pdf this morning. Waiting on delivery,  :!!

Thanks to mollinary for getting in touch with Simon, a link to the PDF has been sent through. As it seems something ate the PDF which Simon had sent out within minutes of my ordering this morning. Computers...

Quote from: fred. on 24 March 2018, 09:04:59 PM
Thanks to mollinary for getting in touch with Simon, a link to the PDF has been sent through. As it seems something ate the PDF which Simon had sent out within minutes of my ordering this morning. Computers...

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/71645180/computer-says-no.jpg)

 :D


I've done a fair bit of reading of the rules, and am liking what I see. What are particularly fun are the little grey box outs with examples in, especially when you pay attention to the commander's names. Although I think most will only make sense to English men of a certain age...

Quote from: fred. on 26 March 2018, 06:36:23 PM
:D


I've done a fair bit of reading of the rules, and am liking what I see. What are particularly fun are the little grey box outs with examples in, especially when you pay attention to the commander's names. Although I think most will only make sense to English men of a certain age...

Glad your first look is proving positive.  With regard to the names, what do you expect when the rules are written by English men of a certain age........ (well at least one   :D. )?

They work to American men of a certain age with access to Wikipedia.  :)

Quote from: mollinary on 26 March 2018, 06:48:44 PM
With regard to the names, what do you expect when the rules are written by English men of a certain age........

I didn't expect anything around the names used in examples. But was pleasantly surprised and amused by it  ;D

Quote from: fred. on 26 March 2018, 06:53:07 PM
I didn't expect anything around the names used in examples. But was pleasantly surprised and amused by it  ;D

I confess that coming up with them helped make a potentially rather tedious task more enjoyable.  However, it does give away the somewhat puerile nature of my sense of humour!

Mollinary

Had hoped the rules had arrived today, as our son told me one of my 'book parcels' had arrived. Sadly not to be but not all bad as it was one on Monmouth's Rebellion ordered last week. Let's hope for tomorrow, if the Royal Mail first class delivery arrives, even though it would be a day late...

Quote from: Steve J on 26 March 2018, 08:23:51 PM
Had hoped the rules had arrived today, as our son told me one of my 'book parcels' had arrived. Sadly not to be but not all bad as it was one on Monmouth's Rebellion ordered last week. Let's hope for tomorrow, if the Royal Mail first class delivery arrives, even though it would be a day late...

Hi Steve,

I know Simon had a (very welcome) big response to the launch on Friday, so some orders may take a day or two to arrive. I hope you find it worth the wait!

Andrew

Good to hear there has been a big response :) :) :) =D> =D> =D>

Pierre the Shy and I should be giving the sample scenario a run on Friday

Hi Andrew,
I know it will be worth the wait. The rules were posted  on the Friday, it's just the Royal Mail being a tad slow. Great to hear there has been a big response to these rules :). Well done to the both of you!

Quote from: paulr on 26 March 2018, 11:14:12 PM
Good to hear there has been a big response :) :) :) =D> =D> =D>

Pierre the Shy and I should be giving the sample scenario a run on Friday

I'm not 100% sure why but I have not felt so motivated by a new set of rules for some years.  I have read the rules over several times and feel we should be able to use them without too much drama once we have played a couple of turns.

I have taken the Royalist cause for our upcoming battle, playing Lord Byron. I have promised Paul that I will not start espousing poetry.....

Then I see D Guy has posted his thoughts on Montrose's Army at Tippermuir using FK&P on his blog that I follow: http://inredcoatragsattired.com/2018/03/26/can-little-beasts-with-lions-roar-montroses-army-at-tippermuir-1644-configured-for-fkp/

VERY useful indeed  :-B :-bd    

Thanks for the linkage, Pierre. I really like Baroque but FK&P just seems to capture what I want to do. Will be anxious to see how things turn out for you guys Friday. Hopefully you'll start on your north of the border stuff soon.  :)

 Still no rules ... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Quote from: Steve J on 27 March 2018, 07:11:48 PM
Still no rules ... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

You obviously need to flog your postman until his morale improves!

Use an officer to replay his activation card ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: pierre the shy on 27 March 2018, 08:10:43 AM
I'm not 100% sure why but I have not felt so motivated by a new set of rules for some years.  I have read the rules over several times and feel we should be able to use them without too much drama once we have played a couple of turns.

I have taken the Royalist cause for our upcoming battle, playing Lord Byron. I have promised Paul that I will not start espousing poetry.....

I have gladly taken up the cause of Parilament and promised not to sing Pslams  :)
Based on watching a test game, I too am really looking forward to trying this set of rules :)

Hmmm, the 'Royal' part of the Royal Mail is obviously sabotaging this staunch Parliamentarians desire to get his Godly hands on these rules :D.

...and my hard copy just arrived - here in the back woods of another continent - Royal Mail Postage Meter stamps and all (Sorry - Steve - just having a bit of fun - although, as Paul suggests, trying another activation draw may be in order - hope you get yours soon!).

It looks great, BTW, and what I really appreciate it uses heavy stock for covers and pages - and spiral bound.

Still no rules :'(. Glad yours arrived though Bill (he said through clenched teeth ;)). I've let Simon know and if nothing has arrived by Saturday, he is going to send out another copy. To his eternal credit, he sent me a free digital version to tide me over until the hard copy arrives. What a gent!

Well done Simon =D> =D> =D>

I've been told my package has arrived... :).

Quote from: Steve J on 29 March 2018, 12:22:46 PM
I've been told my package has arrived... :).

Hurrah! 

Mollinary, can I ask a rules question?

Are all units intended to be based the same? I'm particularly thinking about the smaller units like Forlorn Hope, Artillery or single hit cavalry units?

I'm assuming with the limit of 2 units per box, it doesn't matter too much. And probably the area of the unit's footprint should broadly correspond to the size of the unit. I suppose I'm asking how have you based these type of units?

I'm thinking of using 15cm boxes, with foot battalia made of 3x40mm square bases.

Hi Fred,

The fun of a grid based set of rules is that it doesn't matter how you base your units, as long as they fit in the box -in fact, the two sides can be based entirely differently and they will still work!  Because my collection is ove twenty years old, my basing for FK&P reflected my original intent to try and adapt Volley and Bayonet. A standard foot battalia has  3 x 1 1/2" square bases, as does a standard horse unit. It hen put these in an mdf sabot  with a 5mm rim all the way around. It is on this that I attach my labels. My gun batteries are  2 x 1 1/2" Base, as are my small horse units, and Commanded Shot.   When we introduced the idea of Forlorn Hopes, I based some new figures up and went for something about 90mm long but 15mm deep. All these can Ben used on a 125mm or 150mm grid.  Your basing sounds perfect for a 15cm grid!

Best,

Mollinary

Thanks.

For the 2 base units, do you then sabot them on the same base as 3 units (approx 125mm) or smaller (approx 90mm)?

I like the idea of the smaller shallow Forlorn Hope units.

I was thinking about sabots, and thinking that a good bit extra at the back might be useful to allow for markers, so they can move with the unit, rather than being left behind. Probably a 125mm wide sabot, but 55mm or 60mm deep (for 40mm square bases).

The Eagle did indeed land today, so I'm one happy (and relieved) bunny this evening :). I know what I'm going to be reading over Easter :D.

Good news, Steve!  Fred, I make the sabots to fit the units, so my artillery and two base units have sabots which are two thirds the width of the standard unit (+ the usual 5mm lip each).  The labels I stick on the back edge have, from left to right: a white section with the ammo marked (this will read, for Musket armed troops, say, M M M M) which can be marked off as used. Then a coloured block representing which army the unit belongs to. I find this quite necessary as otherwise it can get very confusing in these swirling cavalry melees!  Then, in the central block comes the name of the unit, it's status in brackets (V), (S) or (R), and whether Swedish or Dutch Style if Cavalry (S) or (D). Finally is another coloured block indicating the Brigade the unit belongs to. Brigade commanders (usually Colonels) have their own name and their Brigade colour behind their base. All a bit complex. If Leon is very kind, I can send him a couple of,photos to show what I mean!  ;)

Mollinary

EDIT: Pics added!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/892/41103302141_c2c88460c5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25CaaH8)Mollinary1 (https://flic.kr/p/25CaaH8) by Leon Pengilley (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156736924@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/802/41059852642_84a5f86248_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25yjtFQ)Mollinary2 (https://flic.kr/p/25yjtFQ) by Leon Pengilley (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156736924@N08/), on Flickr

Quote from: mollinary on 29 March 2018, 06:41:37 PM
If Leon is very kind, I can send him a couple of,photos to show what I mean!  ;)

Mollinary

And in the interim, he is a photo Mollinary sent me:
(https://inredcoatragsattired.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/8aa858f7-98d7-4f9b-9a0a-61cc243db1aa.jpeg?w=850)
  ...or I "borrowed" it from another site - I don't remember :)

Thanks Mollinary & Fred, a useful discussion :)

Another basing related question, from my limited reading on the ECW Musketeers seem to have formed in 6-8 ranks, I'm not sure how many ranks pike men formed in.
I'm looking at basing musket figures in 2 ranks. should the pike & command be 2, 3 or 4 ranks?

I like to look of Simon's units with a command group in front of the pikes, I probably won't have as many flags though ;)

D_Guy, posted a very useful picture while I was typing this, I like the officers behind the shot

Are those 'Dutch' Horse on the far flank?

thanks d_Guy, I think those are the double width units mentioned in the rules (so 6 x 1.5 inch bases). They do look rather good, but you need a few figures for that!

mollinary - good info about the labelling and basing. If young Leon is doing something sensible like having an Easter break, then I'd be happy to post photos.

paul - I'd certainly go with more depth on the pike bases, probably 4 ranks, to go with 2 ranks of shot. Putting officers at the back does look good. Lots of flags is good too.

Quote from: paulr on 29 March 2018, 07:15:18 PM
Thanks Mollinary & Fred, a useful discussion :)

Another basing related question, from my limited reading on the ECW Musketeers seem to have formed in 6-8 ranks, I'm not sure how many ranks pike men formed in.
I'm looking at basing musket figures in 2 ranks. should the pike & command be 2, 3 or 4 ranks?

I like to look of Simon's units with a command group in front of the pikes, I probably won't have as many flags though ;)

D_Guy, posted a very useful picture while I was typing this, I like the officers behind the shot

Are those 'Dutch' Horse on the far flank?

Hi Paul,

The photo d'Guy has posted is of the double sized units I created to do a demonstration game at COLOURS 2017. The horse unit in the background is, indeed, a double sized Dutch Style horse unit.  Regarding the basing, I wouldn't use mine as in any way gospel. Apologies to those who have heard the story before, but the basing date back to the 1990s, when I first started an abortive attempt to write my own rules, and then adapt the basing to Volley and Bayonet. I started making units on a 1:10 scale. All musketeers and pikes usually formed up 6 deep, for me, unless you are doing 1:1,this is too deep for miniattures. I wanted my pikes to look sufficiently massive, so I went with 1 rank equals one and a half in real life. So why are the musketeers only two deep? Well, when I started the armies, the only musketeer figures I could find were firing, and I thought more than two deep looked stupid! So I decided to take the moment when the rear three ranks had moved forward into the front three, to issue 'salvee' prior to a charge. At that time, there would have been two or more Musket stands to each side of any pike stand. When I changed rules, rather than rebase, I just made the unit one pike base per two muskets. Hope that makes sense?

To the best of my understanding by this time the musket and pikes were usually of equal depth (usually six rows). Of course I pay no attention to this because pikes look better with greater depth. My compromise is I use two pike rows for shot heavy and three (I add a strip with a single row of pikes) for standard and pike heavy. In actual practice I think that they would get formed up in the way that would give the best tactical application at the moment (but that's me). Mollinary will likely have a better answer.

Oops - posted over you Andrew, sorry!

Very useful discussion on basing. I was originally thinking of using units on one 120mm wide base but I like the idea suggested by others of using several smaller 40X40mm bases to make up a unit as it gives a lot more flexability if you want to flick between a 1/3 pike 2/3 shot unit and a all shot unit (e.g. Montrose's Irish units).

Unfortunately our refight of the Battle of Montgomery that was to have been played today is now going to occur on Sunday. So I get a couple more days to pen a few verses of really bad poetry?   ;)

Thanks for the info both of you, the idea of deeper pike for pike heavy units is one I'll keep in mind :-\

Apologies Pierre the Shy for having to postpone our game, at least it was for something important, a large WWII Eastern Front multi-player game :) :)

We should probably wait till after our test game on Sunday to be planning our basing, but I think this is a strong indication of our enthusiasm for the rules ;D

The flexibility of sabots and small sub-bases is attractive, it will require careful though when painting units :-\
The look of mini-dioramas on larger bases also appeals :-\

Battle of Montgomey is a classic, just watch the slope down from the castle to the river is a lot longer and steeper than people think!

Hello All

Does anyone have any opinions on whether an EARLIER time period for the rules could be used? I'm looking at French Wars of Religion-ish time period and just thinking whether I could use these or wait for the revamped Part 2 that would cover the Renaissance? From what I can see it is fairly ECW-mid 1600s specific.

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

Pics added for mollinary!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/892/41103302141_c2c88460c5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25CaaH8)Mollinary1 (https://flic.kr/p/25CaaH8) by Leon Pengilley (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156736924@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/802/41059852642_84a5f86248_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25yjtFQ)Mollinary2 (https://flic.kr/p/25yjtFQ) by Leon Pengilley (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156736924@N08/), on Flickr

If I may throw in my tuppence worth on the depth of pikes question, for a long time I've been thinking we wargamers have been getting it wrong. I used to have ECW (BCW?) armies and used DBR (yes, I know) meaning my pike blocks were often double the depth of the shot. Now I must make it clear I'm no expert but this link suggests that, for practical reasons, pike formations using the Swedish Brigade system may only have been 5 deep and therefore shallower than the depth of shot.

http://www.syler.com/Breitenfeld/infantry/SwedeBrigade.htm (http://www.syler.com/Breitenfeld/infantry/SwedeBrigade.htm)

I'm sticking my neck out further here but I also seem to recall seeing a close up of Streeter's depiction of Naseby which, whilst stylised, shows pike blocks as five deep and shot as six deep. I await the experts' comments.

[Nice pics by the way]

As you have called for expert comments - I am not one - I have yet to even understand what the term “push of pike” meant or looked like.

Most M&P wargamers I suspect now use Keith Robert’s most excellent Osprey book, “Pike and Shot Tactics, 1590 - 1660” as their overall guide. It provides some information on the number of ranks but seems (to me at least) that there were no absolute rules. They were as deep as neccessary to get the job done (as your reference suggests).

It’s interesting to look at the basic moving parts for infantry. Soldiers were trained in files (by weapon type) to learn the weapons handling, movement and spacing. Then trained in companies to see how files worked together. Out of this basic tool kit everything else is assembled.
As is often said, these companies were the administrative home of the men but they would be broken out in groups of files (three of four) to assemble a battalion. Because each man knew how to preform every rank position within a file, they could operate ten deep, five deep or anything in between without much confusion. If, for example, musketeers were already proficient in the Dutch firing drill, adding the Swedish three rank Salvee to their repertoire was not a hugely difficult task.   A really interesting read, BTW, is David Lawrence’s “The Complete Soldier - Military Culture in Early Stuart England, 1630-1645” (2009)

We may tend to get a little too dogmatic about things having to be exactly so. These were intelligent soldiers (at all levels) who would have adapted to make things work as was required. My particular interest is looking at armies that are not yet well trained (for the most part) and realizing that if the file training was not well done and faithfully practiced, things easily fell apart.

Incidently the six and six structure I mentioned is from Appendix A of Firth’s Cromwell’s Army (abstracted from Elton’s 1659 “The Complete Body of the Art Military” regarding company drill). Elton (quite dogmatically  :) ) states, “...our Companies consisting of one hundred men, two parts being musketeers, and a third pikes, the depth of our files always being six deep in armies of England, Scotland, and Ireland...”

To bend this back to FK&P, I like the way the training levels (fairly routine in most rules) are adjusted with “untried” markers to fine tune these levels. I like that the idea of P:M ratios are still included. I particularly like the way the command structure is designed - you can take a well-trained army and turn it into mass confusion or vv, by spending time with how to implement command. I like that training and experience give musketeers more flexibility in how to use their muskets. I love that you are beguiled into doing stupid things by deciding to make just one more card draw!  :)

OK - way too many words - sorry.

I'm no expert but from what's been posted and a look around some online contemporary pictures of Naseby it looks like pikes are limited to 5 or 6 ranks, so will have the same depth as the shot "sleeves" of their musketeer comrades.

For example Sprigge's plan of Naseby printed in 1647: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/battle-naseby clearly shows the ranks of each infantry batallia as being even.

I'd agree with Westmarcher that the perception of much deeper pike formations on many gaming tables appears to come about through the 4 ranks of figures allowed for in such rules as DBR and DBM.

OK it might be an epiphany for me but Mollinary's modular basing system using sabots looks very practical. Might go for 10mm or even 15mm on the back given the amount of information we tend to cram on our base labels. Adding 10mm (not including the existing 5mm lip) to the total base depth does not seem too much of an issue.

Quote from: pierre the shy on 30 March 2018, 07:46:47 PM
I'm no expert but from what's been posted and a look around some online contemporary pictures of Naseby it looks like pikes are limited to 5 or 6 ranks, so will have the same depth as the shot "sleeves" of their musketeer comrades.

For example Sprigge's plan of Naseby printed in 1647: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/battle-naseby clearly shows the ranks of each infantry batallia as being even.

I'd agree with Westmarcher that the perception of much deeper pike formations on many gaming tables appears to come about through the 4 ranks of figures allowed for in such rules as DBR and DBM.

OK it might be an epiphany for me but Mollinary's modular basing system using sabots looks very practical. Might go for 10mm or even 15mm on the back though given the amount of information we tend to cram on our base labels as total base depth does not seem too much of an issue.  

The only issue on depth is the necessity of being able to fit two units, one behind the other. While this is not generally advisable, it might be necessary if you want to pass fresh troops through disordered ones. 

An interesting discussion, thanks for all the words :)

I really should get back progressing my AWI project, at least until after our test game on Sunday ;)

Pierre the Shy and I had our much anticipated test game of FK&P this afternoon

In summary  :-bd =D> :-bd =D> :-bd

I commanded for Parliament and the Royalist horse ran riot :o :(
I lost most of my horse and even the returning foragers quickly found themselves in trouble :(
The Royalists eventually decided my foot weren't coming off their hill and there was an inconclusive push of pikes up the hill
We played for 3 hours, with a few short breaks to check the rules and came close to a decision before Pierre the Shy had to depart
I had lost 9 out of 13 Victory points and the Royalists had only lost 4 :-[ :-[

The rules work really well, there are plenty of interesting decisions for players to make and they are at an appropriate tactical level :) :-\ :)
There was a really good period feel with not everything going to plan but the players had some ability to influence that

Even though this was our first game everything flowed really well with combats being resolved promptly and simply :) :)

I think we got one thing wrong, you can't Double fire in response to a charge #-o
We remembered the pursuit rule most of the time and I don't think we had any units lost close enough to need to take a rout test :-\

Two questions:
1. When an untried unit has to take a rout test, e.g. is charged, does it get one or two save attempts, we thought one :-/
2. If you have three battalia lined up against one enemy, at their center, can the two side battalia fire at the central enemy if activated before the center one charges (and can the enemy battalia fire back against each) :-\

I'm pretty certain we got this right, Swedish horse B counter charges another unit of Swedish horse A. Swedish horse A hits first as attacker and gets 2 hits, if Swedish horse B fails to save both it is lost and does not get to attempt to hit back

Overall a very enjoyable afternoon with several amusing 'narrative moments' during the game

The plan is to have another game to give us a bit more experience and then run a game for our regular group

As Pierre the Shy was leaving we were discussing how big the armies we wanted would need to be ;D ;D ;D

A really impressive set of rules, many thanks for all your efforts Mollinary

Glad you had such a great game with your first run out :).

Quote from: paulr on 01 April 2018, 05:26:28 AM
Overall a very enjoyable afternoon with several amusing 'narrative moments' during the game
The plan is to have another game to give us a bit more experience and then run a game for our regular group
As Pierre the Shy was leaving we were discussing how big the armies we wanted would need to be ;D ;D ;D
A really impressive set of rules, many thanks for all your efforts Mollinary (and Simon too Paul  ;) )

Well that sums it up nicely - I'm completely sold on these rules.

The majority of results seemed to go in favour of the Royalist Cavalry, but for me really the game was an opportunity to try out different things with the rules. Lord Byron's cavalry brigade seemed inspired (by his poetry?) early on, one unit putting a regiment of Parlimentary horse to the sword before they got a rather bad case of writers block and drew a 1 for activation trying to charge a second disordered unit the next turn. "No matter" thinks Byron "since I'm with the unit I can re-roll the activation roll" so of course he drew another 1, thus ending the brigade's turn completely  >:(

Byron seemed to live a charmed life himself, only taking one light wound but somewhat embarrassingly having to make two emergency command moves when the units he was with where themselves destroyed by units of the Parlimentary cavalry brigade which had flank marched having been foraging at the start of the battle. 

The pike scrum on the hill was less decisive, though it could have gone either way if we had been able to play a bit longer as we both had units with 2 disorders on them.....one more hit would have been enough to destroy them.   

Although Paul doesn't know it yet I think our next test game will be north of the border since D Guy has very thoughtfully provided his take on the forces the Battle of Tippermuir using FK&P on his blog.  As we seem to have mastered the main mechanics of the rules fairly easily using quite large forces on each side I think we can now handle the prospect of another quite large engagement without any qualms. I would also welcome the chance to try D Guys house rules on bows and highland charges for myself.

Cheers
Peter

Quote from: paulr on 01 April 2018, 05:26:28 AM
Pierre the Shy and I had our much anticipated test game of FK&P this afternoon

In summary  :-bd =D> :-bd =D> :-bd

I commanded for Parliament and the Royalist horse ran riot :o :(
I lost most of my horse and even the returning foragers quickly found themselves in trouble :(
The Royalists eventually decided my foot weren't coming off their hill and there was an inconclusive push of pikes up the hill
We played for 3 hours, with a few short breaks to check the rules and came close to a decision before Pierre the Shy had to depart
I had lost 9 out of 13 Victory points and the Royalists had only lost 4 :-[ :-[

The rules work really well, there are plenty of interesting decisions for players to make and they are at an appropriate tactical level :) :- :)
There was a really good period feel with not everything going to plan but the players had some ability to influence that

Even though this was our first game everything flowed really well with combats being resolved promptly and simply :) :)


I think we got one thing wrong, you can't Double fire in response to a charge #-o
That is right, you cannot double fire in response to a charge.

We remembered the pursuit rule most of the time and I don't think we had any units lost close enough to need to take a rout test :-

Two questions:
1. When an untried unit has to take a rout test, e.g. is charged, does it get one or two save attempts, we thought one :-/
A1. Good question. Sorry you didn't find it clear, when I checked I could see why! Actually the intent is for an 'untried' unit to have two attempts to save, not one.

2. If you have three battalia lined up against one enemy, at their center, can the two side battalia fire at the central enemy if activated before the center one charges (and can the enemy battalia fire back against each) :-
A2. Yes they can. Think of this as preparatory fire to shoot the attack in, but remember diagonal fire can only use one to hit card!  It should never be fun having one unit against three, it is why keeping Brigades together is a good idea, if at all possible.

I'm pretty certain we got this right, Swedish horse B counter charges another unit of Swedish horse A. Swedish horse A hits first as attacker and gets 2 hits, if Swedish horse B fails to save both it is lost and does not get to attempt to hit back.
A3. Spot on.

Overall a very enjoyable afternoon with several amusing 'narrative moments' during the game

The plan is to have another game to give us a bit more experience and then run a game for our regular group

As Pierre the Shy was leaving we were discussing how big the armies we wanted would need to be ;D ;D ;D

A really impressive set of rules, many thanks for all your efforts Mollinary

I have put responses to your questions in your text, next to the question. Really glad you enjoyed the game  :-[ , and thanks for such a comprehensive and positive review!

In the midst of travel but couldn't resist a comment.
Really glad you enjoyed the rules in play! In my mind the are "just right" rules, neither overly simple nor overly complex. More kudos to the "Two Thin Lads" (as I calls 'em  :D)

@Mollinary - on the "untried" - if an untried unit was the rear unit in a box with two units and the front unit broke, I tested with only one save for both the breakage of the front unit and the untried marker. Does this seem a reasonable interpretation? (In happened in my Barley Valley game).

Quote from: pierre the shy on 01 April 2018, 10:19:44 AM
Although Paul doesn't know it yet I think our next test game will be north of the border since D Guy has very thoughtfully provided his take on the forces the Battle of Tippermuir using FK&P on his blog.  As we seem to have mastered the main mechanics of the rules fairly easily using quite large forces on each side I think we can now handle the prospect of another quite large engagement without any qualms. I would also welcome the chance to try D Guys house rules on bows and highland charges for myself.

Cheers
Peter

Will be very interested to see how this turns out.

Two quick notes on Tippermuir since I won't get to it for a couple weeks.
1) Montrose extended the fronts of both flanks to keep the enemy horse from flanking them. By doubling his front he halved the depth.
FK&P has a "Staddle" optional rule which should simulate this pretty well. I liked it when I was testing but did not get to try it in a full game - Tippermuir is the perfect application.
2) The only actual terrain feature you really need is a hill less than half way in on Montrose's extreme right. Both he and James Scott tried to take that high ground (Montrose got there first). That house rule (Downhill bonus for Highlanders) might be useful (not against horse of course)  :)

Look forward to Paul finishing AWI and your group moving into W3K!

Hi Bill,

Yes, that is a very reasonable interpretation. I think untried/disaffected troops faced with a unit disintegrating directly to their front would be most likely to fall apart.

Have a good breaka,

Quote from: mollinary on 01 April 2018, 10:47:28 AM
I have put responses to your questions in your text, next to the question. Really glad you enjoyed the game  :-[ , and thanks for such a comprehensive and positive review!

Thanks for the prompt response, you guys have earned good reviews :)

Quote1. When an untried unit has to take a rout test, e.g. is charged, does it get one or two save attempts, we thought one Confused
A1. Good question. Sorry you didn't find it clear, when I checked I could see why! Actually the intent is for an 'untried' unit to have two attempts to save, not one.

We could read it both ways, it was the only ambiguity we came across :-\

Quote2. If you have three battalia lined up against one enemy, at their center, can the two side battalia fire at the central enemy if activated before the center one charges (and can the enemy battalia fire back against each) :-
A2. Yes they can. Think of this as preparatory fire to shoot the attack in, but remember diagonal fire can only use one to hit card!  It should never be fun having one unit against three, it is why keeping Brigades together is a good idea, if at all possible.

That was how we read it, my brigade wasn't quite that dispersed, but it was clearer to describe that way

QuoteI'm pretty certain we got this right, Swedish horse B counter charges another unit of Swedish horse A. Swedish horse A hits first as attacker and gets 2 hits, if Swedish horse B fails to save both it is lost and does not get to attempt to hit back.
A3. Spot on.

:) and the only good news for side B is that Swedish horse A gets a pursuit marker

Quote from: d_Guy on 01 April 2018, 02:36:50 PM
In the midst of travel but couldn't resist a comment.
Really glad you enjoyed the rules in play! In my mind the are "just right" rules, neither overly simple nor overly complex. More kudos to the "Two Thin Lads" (as I calls 'em  :D)

Seconded

Quote from: d_Guy on 01 April 2018, 02:36:50 PM
@Mollinary - on the "untried" - if an untried unit was the rear unit in a box with two units and the front unit broke, I tested with only one save for both the breakage of the front unit and the untried marker. Does this seem a reasonable interpretation? (In happened in my Barley Valley game).

Quote from: mollinary on 01 April 2018, 02:46:52 PM
Yes, that is a very reasonable interpretation. I think untried/disaffected troops faced with a unit disintegrating directly to their front would be most likely to fall apart.

That makes a lot of sense and fits with the wording, and was one of the options we discussed :)

Quote from: pierre the shy on 01 April 2018, 10:19:44 AM
Well that sums it up nicely - I'm completely sold on these rules.

Although Paul doesn't know it yet I think our next test game will be north of the border since D Guy has very thoughtfully provided his take on the forces the Battle of Tippermuir using FK&P on his blog.  As we seem to have mastered the main mechanics of the rules fairly easily using quite large forces on each side I think we can now handle the prospect of another quite large engagement without any qualms. I would also welcome the chance to try D Guys house rules on bows and highland charges for myself.

Seconded

I do now ;D

It sounds as though sales of FK&P are going well. Apparently Simon ran out of stock of the associated Dash chits, they are now back in stock

A very well deserved success =D> =D> =D>

I hope the preparations for the demo games at Salute are going well

I completed all the units necessary to play Tippermuir last night (they're only printed card bases  :-[) using DGuys expanded OOB for FK&P so we will be playing that sometime soon.

Very much a case of quality vs quantity since the Covenant force is made up of almost entirely raw militia foot and horse against Montrose's veteran Irish and highlanders of various types. The Covenant have twice as many units as the Royalists all up but some of the militia is very dodgy and must pass two untried unit tests before they can act. Some of the Royalist highlanders still get limited ranged bow fire.

A must win battle for the Royalists else the campaign in Scotland will effectively be over from the get go. 

looking forward to this after the mainly cavalry based scrap we had in our first game.

Quote from: paulr on 06 April 2018, 12:44:11 AM
It sounds as though sales of FK&P are going well. Apparently Simon ran out of stock of the associated Dash chits, they are now back in stock

A very well deserved success =D> =D> =D>

I hope the preparations for the demo games at Salute are going well

Thanks Paul.  I finished boxing everything this afternoon, so I am ready to go.  OOBs, labels, all the extra paraphernalia done. Simon, however is up to his eyeballs in grout, basing chickens, he assures me!  I thought that was a rather unkind way to describe the Parliamentarians, but there we go!

Quote from: pierre the shy on 06 April 2018, 08:32:38 PM
I completed all the units necessary to play Tippermuir last night (they're only printed card bases  :-[) using DGuys expanded OOB for FK&P so we will be playing that sometime soon.

Very much a case of quality vs quantity since the Covenant force is made up of almost entirely raw militia foot and horse against Montrose's veteran Irish and highlanders of various types. The Covenant have twice as many units as the Royalists all up but some of the militia is very dodgy and must pass two untried unit tests before they can act. Some of the Royalist highlanders still get limited ranged bow fire.

A must win battle for the Royalists else the campaign in Scotland will effectively be over from the get go. 

looking forward to this after the mainly cavalry based scrap we had in our first game.

Sounds a very interesting game coming up :-\

You had plenty of infantry in our last game, for some reason you chose not to do much with it ;)
It made no sense for mine to come off their nice hill ;D

Will be ordering my copy today and looking forward to reading it and painting and  arranging my 10mm figures!!

This is a very useful thread by the way!

Pierre the Shy will be playing our second game of FK&P this evening, Tippermuir 1644, thanks d_Guy for the scenario

I wish Mollinary and Simon the best of luck with their demo games at Salute

Quote from: paulr on 13 April 2018, 04:05:10 AM

I wish Mollinary and Simon the best of luck with their demo games at Salute

Most sincerely seconded!  :-bd

I will be playing Tippermuir this weekend as well to add to the festivities in my small way.  I will be really interested to see what it looks like with humans on both sides!

Just posted more on the set up:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2018/04/13/he-saw-the-enemy-up-on-a-large-extended-plain-the-deployments-at-tippermuir-1644/

And here is one pic - a view of the Covenanter positions from the middle of the Irish Brigade:
(https://inredcoatragsattired.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/tipp-deployment-1b-center.jpg?w=850)

Thanks guys!  Now relaxing in a hotel bar with a large glass of chilled S-B after a busy afternoon setting up. We have a prime pitch, right in the centre of the hall, and all looks great  (apart from the fact I left Sir Arthur Heselrige at home!) :'( :'(

Busy day tomorrow.

Andrew

Glad you're all set up and look forward to catching up with you and others tomorrow. I'm on GJ11 helping out Michael Leck and Co with their 'Battle of Stake game using 'The Pikemen's Lament' rules. Pop by and say hello if you have the chance.

Welcome back D Guy - hope the vacation went well.

We played my interpretation of your original Tippermuir scenario last night in about 3 hours, ending up with pretty close to the historical result.

I based the game on the supposition that up to 6000 Covenant militia took to the field to oppose Montrose's 3000 strong army.

Montrose himself had to test for wounds after the Badenoch Levy he was leading on the right flank were destroyed while fighting against one of the Clackmannanshire levy units. He survived unharmed so the Royalist Captain-General's campaign in Scotland will continue.

I played the Covenanters and as in our first game my commanding general (Lord Elcho) had to make more than one emergency command moves when units he was with were defeated  :-[ For what its worth he also survived unscathed.

I will put up a separate battle report in due course.

The game only increased our belief that FK&P are a very good set of rules.

By using DGuy's house rules for bows and highlanders I'm convinced that FK&P cover the smaller 1644/45 battles in Scotland very well.

Now I just need to explain to Mrs Shy why I need yet more figures  ;)
       

Frustrating to hear that Sir Arthur decided not to make the trip, hopefully everything else goes well ;)

Quote from: pierre the shy on 13 April 2018, 07:10:43 PM
We played my interpretation of your original Tippermuir scenario last night in about 3 hours, ending up with pretty close to the historical result.
...
The game only increased our belief that FK&P are a very good set of rules.

It is a very good scenario with interesting challenges for both sides :)
While things turned out 'rather well' for the Royalists there were several moments where things could have gone decidedly wrong X_X

FK&P gave a great game, even though it was only our second game we rattled through the turns :-bd =D> :-bd
We only had to consult the quick reference sheet once or twice a turn and looked in the rule book once :-bd =D> :-bd
There were several great narrative moments and it gave a wonderful period feel :-bd =D> :-bd

Quote from: mollinary on 13 April 2018, 06:39:18 PM
Thanks guys!  Now relaxing in a hotel bar with a large glass of chilled S-B after a busy afternoon setting up. We have a prime pitch, right in the centre of the hall, and all looks great  (apart from the fact I left Sir Arthur Heselrige at home!) :'( :'(

Busy day tomorrow.

Andrew

No "Lobsters" for dinner then (or did they make it with out Sir Arthur)? :)
Have a great time!

Peter and Paul - obviously I love these rules and glad you are coming on board with them. To be honest, in the Tippermuir scenario with the "traditional" numbers my money would be on the Covenanter's (but only just). I'm anxious to see how things turn out with the randomized brigade activation attempts in my solo play version.

Look forward to seeing the full report.

Steve, thanks for your comments over at the blog. Have fun tomorrow as well.

Quote from: d_Guy on 13 April 2018, 10:11:40 PM
Peter and Paul - obviously I love these rules and glad you are coming on board with them. To be honest, in the Tippermuir scenario with the "traditional" numbers my money would be on the Covenanter's (but only just). I'm anxious to see how things turn out with the randomized brigade activation attempts in my solo play version.

Look forward to seeing the full report.

Steve, thanks for your comments over at the blog. Have fun tomorrow as well.

Be interested to hear about your randomised ( :)) brigade activation goes after you've played with it.

  ;D
Yes I saw there was an entire thread devoted to British vs correct spelling while I was gone.  ;)

Looks good

Take care

Andy

I did my own Tippermuir replay yesterday and Montrose lost! My solo play mechanics seemed to be the root cause of the failure and I plan to do another replay WITHOUT my additional "friction" being added (which i'll put in their own Batrep thread).

The (brief) Batrep and pics are here:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2018/04/15/hotte-alarumes-and-continuall-fyre-the-battle-of-tippermuir-1644/

Here is a pic at the height of the action looking south toward Lamberkein Ridge:
(https://inredcoatragsattired.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/tipp-bat_late-game-the-battle-for-the-center.jpg?w=850)

And an overall view toward the end of the game where the Royalist still have a slight chance of winning:
(https://inredcoatragsattired.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/tipp-bat_late-game.jpg?w=850)

In the mean time I'm sure many are now recovering from Salute and all went well.

Greetings

I can't tell you how others found it but the 28mm game looked great (and had a lot of cheerful players when I saw it) and the 10mm table demonstrated how you could equally well use 10mm.

I had a quick chat with Andrew and Simon.  Simon said he had got through half the print run since launch. The rules were being stocked by Caliver and Foundry.   I intend to order my copy plus PDF from Simon later this week.

Regards

Edward

Good looking game, I do like the low level photos.

Regarding the End Turn card, one option is to have two of these, and only end the turn when both are drawn.

In general it can be problametic when a game ends up with too many random elements, as FKaP already has Brigade activations, with a chance of failure, further randomisation may be too much. Though I can see the appeal of randomising Brigade order

An interesting account d_Guy, the Irish are indeed key to Montrose's chance of success

We use two 'tea break' cards for ITLSU with the turn only ending when the second is drawn and find it much improves the flow :-\

I love the ingenuity gamers bring to their games.  The key seems to me to be creating your own image of how the battles you are trying to represent played out, and allowing for this, coming up with a fun system.   As I play with these sort of variables, I find it gradually helps to  clarify in my own mind the important variables that influenced the real battles.  What a wondeful hobby!

Kustenjaeger - thanks for that update on Salute.

Fred and Paul - good suggestions and thanks. I may try the two card approach at some point. The random order of brigade activation tends to keep me honest in my solo play. Agree you can overdo the thing since, as Fred points out, the activation procedures in FK&P already add a good deal of friction.

Oops - posted over you, Andrew. Hope you had a great time at Salute?

I couldn't agree more about our hobby and how it can be used to study and shape our thinking on historic battles.
I seem to making a career of doing Montrose's first four battles over and over - at some point I need to move on to Auldearn.  :)

Great report Bill 8). Luckily I managed to chat, all too briefly, with Andrew but failed to say Hi to Simon, as both were somewhat busy everytime I passed the stand. Great to see such interest in the rules though, which is thoroughly deserved. With Salute out of the way, time to get my wooden block out and some games on the table of FK&P :).

Quote from: d_Guy on 15 April 2018, 07:57:43 PM
Oops - posted over you, Andrew. Hope you had a great time at Salute?

I couldn't agree more about our hobby and how it can be used to study and shape our thinking on historic battles.
I seem to making a career of doing Montrose's first four battles over and over - at some point I need to move on to Auldearn.  :)

SALUTE was excellent, lots of interest, and great to talk to so many interesting folks. We were insanely busy, so did not have as much time as we would have liked to chat . But those who played seemed to have a good time. Sadly I had to spend some time explaining to people why the denizens of Borsetshire referred to July 14th as 'Best Eel' day!

Good to hear it all went well :)

I really liked the two game approach, Simon's game to awe, your's to show how it can be done in an achievable way

Good to see you yesterday and both games looked great, really nice.  Glad it was busy for you as well, I hope the voice and feet have recovered a bit!

Quote from: mollinary on 02 March 2018, 03:28:47 PM
Hi Bunny,

Depends what you mean by a set?  The base set of rules, To the Strongest, use playing cards. Simon recommends each player has two standard packs, with the court cards removed - so a pack of 80. The chits he sells come in packs of 80.  Now, for a one on one game you will need two sets, one for each player. For multi player games, it works best if each player has his own set, but if you want players to play I. Sequence rather than simultaneously, then you can get away with two packs.  For FK&P you can use the same number. However, the introduction of shooting, and the innovation of drawing two cards hitting on 8+s for all the occasions where in TtS you draw one card hitting on a 6+, means you can get through the cards rather more rapidly than in TtS,. So, if you think this dramatically affects the odds as you get towards the end of your turn, you may wish to increase the number to 120.    As d'Guy says, I have got round this by using chits for activations, placing them next to Units, and cards for combat hits/saves etc. Placing them at the back of the table. I think it works better this way round with the smaller scales, but it is entirely a matter of personal taste.

Mollinary

Sounds like 120 is the way to go for FK&P.  Initially I will be using my 10mm League of Augsburg collection, as I have two armies ready to go.  These will be on a 120mm frontage so 15cm squares would be the way to go.

Quote from: Bunny on 26 April 2018, 06:57:54 AM
Sounds like 120 is the way to go for FK&P.  Initially I will be using my 10mm League of Augsburg collection, as I have two armies ready to go.  These will be on a 120mm frontage so 15cm squares would be the way to go.

That should work very well, the units will be very similar in size to my own standard ones. When I was looking to maximise the number of squares on my table I got a large mat with a 125cm grid made, but that was just me! ;)

Andrew

Quote from: mollinary on 26 April 2018, 07:10:43 AM
That should work very well, the units will be very similar in size to my own standard ones. When I was looking to maximise the number of squares on my table I got a large mat with a 125cm grid made, but that was just me! ;)

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Where did you get the 125mm grid cloth from? Or did you make it yourself?

Bunny

Just had a read of a very positive review of FK&P in Wargames Soldiers & Strategy No. 96 in my 'local' magazine store :)

Good to see them getting a good press as did the Pendraken ACW range for ACW raid scenarios  :) :)

Very glad you mentioned this review Paul, I have the eMag and completely missed it!

A good review as you say but sorry they failed to mention Andrew (Mollinary) as the co-designer!  :(  Simon is always very careful to acknowledge him at every turn.

Incidentally, my own view is FK&P works pretty well for small battle too. Have seen lots of comments that it is best with large battles (as in this review) but I think the game engine is very robust and adaptable. The use of one of the extra rules, "Straddle" (splitting a unit over two boxes) has not been, as yet, well explored but shows a good deal of promise in small force encounters.

Quote from: Bunny on 26 April 2018, 08:13:19 AM
Hi Andrew,

Where did you get the 125mm grid cloth from? Or did you make it yourself?

Bunny

f

Hi Bunny,

Sorry, don't know how I missed this. I ordered direct from Deepcut Studios via the web. They are very helpful at producing custom mats to your specifications, including grids, grids marked only at the corner, no grids, and a long as you want. My latest mat is 20ft by 6ft! 

Andrew

Quote from: mollinary on 06 July 2018, 07:19:18 AM
f

Hi Bunny,

Sorry, don't know how I missed this. I ordered direct from Deepcut Studios via the web. They are very helpful at producing custom mats to your specifications, including grids, grids marked only at the corner, no grids, and a long as you want. My latest mat is 20ft by 6ft! 

Andrew

Very useful, ta.

Quote from: mollinary on 06 July 2018, 07:19:18 AM
My latest mat is 20ft by 6ft! 

Andrew

You've been spending too much time around Simon, the megalomania is spreading ;) :)

Good, I like the idea of wargames paraphernalia being sold by wargamers who understand the market.