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:

  ...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

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!

Mollinary1 by Leon Pengilley, on Flickr

Mollinary2 by Leon Pengilley, 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

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 

I commanded for Parliament and the Royalist horse ran riot
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
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

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
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 

I commanded for Parliament and the Royalist horse ran riot
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
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

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!