Hi All,
Was wondering what the current preference is for a rule set for ECW?
Also the basing sizes and numbers of figures per base for 10mm for the rule sets?
Any help much appreciated.
I'm still using DBR, with numerous improvements.
Thanks FierceKitty. I used to play DBR so not a problem there. My problem was a quick Google seemed to throw up Warhammer (1644) rules and Pike & Shot as the main contenders, neither of which I am familiar with.
Any suggestion of base sizes to use would also be a great help. If I remember correctly the suggested increase in figures compared to 25/28mm figures was x 4 for 15mm and x 8 for 6mm figures, is there a rule of thumb for 10mm?
Again any help much appreciated.
I think there is also a ruleset from polemos that covers that period. Don't know about it's playability though...
You try Basic Baroque from the Impetus stable or Forlorn Hope...I did have WECW and 1644 and there both bloody awful..I think someones done an ECW conversion of Maurice as well
I use DBR frontages, but I've made them a bit less deep for foot, otherwise a pike block looks ridiculous. It creates a minor difference in the amount of overlap a flank attack on a column can cause (a recoiling pike block taken in flank looses three elements, not two), but I can live with that.
There are some WMA variants on the following site which might be of use:
http://www.ricks-warmaster.com/ricks_updates-variants.htm
Some people have also used the new Maurice rules for ECW.
Yup, currently using Maurice for ECW or Field of Glory Renaissance. Maurice base sizes dont matter as long as both armies use the same sizes and FOG is generally speaking foot on 40x20 and cavalry on 40x30.
There are quite a few out there, but I am still looking for the perfect set. Of the older sets around Forlorn Hope is pretty good, and has its own Yahoo group. So do the Polemos stable of rules, and the system was originally designed for ECW and so models it particularly well. There is a second edition of the rules which ironed out a number of the original teething troubles. Volley and Bayonet looks as if it should be easily adaptable, and I know some have tried it, but I have never succeeded. Maurice looks fun, and reading it should need very little in the way of modification. The way it allows certain characteristics to be included in armies means that it is a great toolbox for modifying to other periods. My favourite set of rules at present belong to the Command and Colors stable by Richard Borg. Again, he does not do this period per se, but both his Ancient and Napoleonic rules offer ideas that are applicable. Overall, Chrissy, it depends on whether you want it already completed, or are willing to "tinker" a bit! Lots of options.
Mollinary
Hi
Our group use regiment of Foote by Peter pig.
A great set of rules for 15mm but you can play 10mm with no problems.
We use 25x25mm bases for foot and horse with
6 musketeers, 9 pikemen and 3 cavalry per base.
Units can be from 2 to 7 bases large.
Jim
Not sure if this blog belongs to somebody on this site ..and although its 6mm its look fantastic and uses C&C for ECW, and shows what great stuff can be done in smaller scales
http://ecw6.blogspot.co.uk/
Don't think Lee is on this forum, Fenton, but agree with your comments!
Mollinary
ECWarmaster & RenaissanceMaster for me :)
Tempted to look at Pike & Shotte at some point as well.
Quote from: Nosher on 24 December 2012, 09:18:18 AM
Yup, currently using Maurice for ECW or Field of Glory Renaissance.
Both excellent choices.
:-bd
Warhammer Ancients sucks. Warhammer ECW sucks hard. Twice. Best avoided.
DBR also doesn't work that well which is a shame.
My only foray into ECW was using the Basic Baroque Sampler for Impetus. I played it at the club with a load of people who know better than me, but everyone was agreed that it had a nice feel to it even though it needs a bit of tweaking around the edges.
I'd go for DBR, Warmaster, FOG-R and Pike and Shotte. All have different flavours but work well. The WRG Gush rules also work if you can find a copy.
IanS
I'm all about FoG-R, but that's me. ;D
Main problem with DBR is the lack of unit structure, which detracts from the flavour of the period in my opinion. Version 2 corrects some of the dafter errors and reduces the ability of generals to send off isolated units looking for open flanks. Other than that it's a reasonably sorted set.
Another vote for Regiment of Foote by Peter Pig, great ruleset which can totally bugger up your carefully planned army (on both sides) by using the marching to battle events, some of which are totally hilarious, for example the local Witchfinder General turns up and makes off with one regiment of dragoons to hunt down Old Blind Mary. Those guys wont be making it onto the battlefield, also other events make some units arrive late, arrive with their status changed, Vets down to normal, Normal down to green, these changes can also be benificial, upgrading regiments, adding some extra troops to regiments, etc, etc, all that ummimg and ahhhing over which troops to pick and the end result is.................... total chaos!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
Of the few games I played with it before ebaying the 15mms I thought it reeked of the period, amateur soldiers led by bungling incompetants, and most importantly, it was fun with a capital "F".
Oh and did I mention its also quite a cheap ruleset, always a plus for us of Scots persuasion. ;)
Gordon
Sounds great fun, why has no one told me about this before! ;D
Cause we want to keep you mad.
IanS :d
Quote from: Hertsblue on 04 January 2013, 09:05:09 AM
Main problem with DBR is the lack of unit structure, which detracts from the flavour of the period in my opinion. Version 2 corrects some of the dafter errors and reduces the ability of generals to send off isolated units looking for open flanks. Other than that it's a reasonably sorted set.
And the weird approach the author has to i) English; ii) mathematics; and iii) history.
Assuming the referance to PB's maths is about the casualty table in ancients upto 6th + Gush. Depite what you miight have heard, that wuz deliberate, so it could be copyrighted. A straight mathematical progression is very much public domain.
IanS
Quote from: FierceKitty on 05 January 2013, 10:50:39 AM
And the weird approach the author has to i) English; ii) mathematics; and iii) history.
History is written by the victor - or in this case, by the rules promoter. :d
Quote from: ianrs54 on 05 January 2013, 12:05:59 PM
Assuming the referance to PB's maths is about the casualty table in ancients upto 6th + Gush. Depite what you miight have heard, that wuz deliberate, so it could be copyrighted. A straight mathematical progression is very much public domain.
IanS
I'm most interested by the instruction to
subtract -1 and -2 for a third and fourth rank of opposing pikemen. Which makes it very desireable that the enemy have deep pike blocks. Hell, he can use some of
my army points to pay for them.
Think you are reading that one the wrong way round - the attacker reduces his die roll by 1 for 3 and 2 for 4 ranks of pike.
IanS
I'm aware that is what the fellow must have intended. It isn't what the words on the page say.