Possible ECW project

[paulr]

As I am now working on the second to last army of my First Crusade project I am casting about for my next 10mm project

The Sudan 1880s has some appeal but as d_Guy wisely said "Green is good" so I'm also thinking about the English Civil War

I know a little about the period but one thing I am not clear on is how the regiments of foot formed up and fought.

How accurate is the central pike flanked by shot model?

How big a unit would form up in this way?

Regiments seem to have ranged from 250 to 1,000 men. I have seen reference to regiments being brigaded and also foot being deployed in divisions

The other obvious question is rules. As you may have gathered our group enjoys V&B for Napoleonic and AWI, DBMM for Ancients and hopefully DBA for Medieval

I have looked around for variants of these for ECW and found very little for V&B and DBA-RRR which uses separate Pike and Shot elements mainly so you can use figures based for DBR

I have played 4 games of DBR, I was roped in to even up numbers in a competition, and it was 4 too many. If find the rules overly complex and don't like the lack of units.

I look forward to the collective wisdom of the forum

[Westmarcher]

I know a little about the period but one thing I am not clear on is how the regiments of foot formed up and fought.

How accurate is the central pike flanked by shot model?

How big a unit would form up in this way?

Regiments seem to have ranged from 250 to 1,000 men. I have seen reference to regiments being brigaded and also foot being deployed in divisions

My Haythornthwaite (The English Civil War 1642-1651: An Illustrated Military History) is not immediately to hand but I seem to recall larger regiments would form up in several pike flanked by shot 'divisions' (i.e., not simply one giant pike and shot block).   Plus, a good source for providing some idea how pike and shot manoeuvred can be found here:-

http://syler.com/drillDemo/menu.html

[FierceKitty]

DBR were a major reason why I resumed writing my own rules. I agree heartily with your objection to the lack of units.

[Fenton]

Personally I would think about including the Thirty Years War as well as It offers some good battles,i interesting history and a good variety of nations

[FierceKitty]

Yank-haters are always saying that the fun of the ACW is that lots of Americans get killed, whoever wins. The ECW may be the American way of returning the compliment!

No, I do not endorse either attitude.

[Poggle]

I have Pendraken ECW armies. My regiments field varying numbers of pike and shot on standard size bases to reflect the different strengths due to recruitment and casualties. My rules of choice are Clarence Harrison's Victory without quarter.

[d_Guy]

Paul
I don't have wide experience in wargaming simply a passion for the ECW period as it played out in the hinterlands
I have never used DBx family but here is a reference that might be useful to you if you are not aware of it:

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/periodadaptations/

Also for a wonderful overview of the period (and lots of details on the military) this is a great starting point:

http://bcw-project.org

For organization and tactics of the M&P period:

https://www.amazon.com/Pike-Shot-Tactics-1590-1660-Elite/dp/1846034698/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

foot regiments were comprised of a number of companies (8 to 10 on average). Companies had both muskets and pikes but when formed up as a regiment for battle the pikes were collected in the center and the musketeers distributed near equally to the flanks. By the time of the ECW this formation was becoming less deep (6 to 8 ranks typical ) and the front more extended.

Understrength regiments were often placed together to form a single, at strength "regiment" in a battle. A Brigade was a command (usually three of four regiments) that might be drawn up in a formation that was mutually supportive of its constituent regiments. Brigades would then form larger, mutually supportive, formations.

I used "Forlorn Hope" in the early 1980's ( the last time I wargamed  before retiring in 2012) and liked it.
I have used "Pike&Shotte" and found it OK (pikes and muskets can be treated separately) but I had trouble with solo play.

I am now a major proponent of "Impetus:Baroque". Its mechanisms work extremely well for solo play.

Neither Baroque nor P&S are specific to the ECW, FH is. There are dozens of specific rules sets, Poggle has mentioned a good one.

I hope this is of some help. Please note virtually everything I have said is highly generalized and I can think of many exceptions so please do not take this as the only way it can possibly be.

Glad you are considering going "green" 

[d_Guy]

No, I do not endorse either attitude.

Nothing that I have ever seen you post would suggest otherwise, Kitty!
Not sure where you stand on ancient Persians however. 

[FierceKitty]

I have a Persian colleague who likes to hand out Iranian confectionery (mainly walnuts and dates in the composition), so I'm fairly pro-Persian, even if I am called Alexander.

[Zippee]

I know a little about the period but one thing I am not clear on is how the regiments of foot formed up and fought.

How accurate is the central pike flanked by shot model?

How big a unit would form up in this way?

Regiments seem to have ranged from 250 to 1,000 men. I have seen reference to regiments being brigaded and also foot being deployed in divisions

Central pike flanked by shot is the 'default' impression, tactically the companies making up the unit could deploy in a number of different (front line of pike, pike at either flank, pike refused behind, pike entirely to one flank, etc) during an engagement but generally all rules assume a unit footprint even if composed of multiple element bases a la DBR and FOG:R - if you wanted to go down to that level of resolution, you'd probably need to tweak something like Sharp Practice (Rich has been working on In The Buff to do just that but it famously stalled years ago on the close combat mechanic and is now only ever mentioned as due for release by some unidentified Easter). However, like the prints of the age wargame units represent the unit with a central block of pike and sleeves of shot. Probably partially because it looks cool and partially because that's what people expect to see  

Typical size of unit in the ECW forming up in that style would be a 'battalia' this may be composed of several regiments, or a regiment may form several battalia. Typical battalia would be in the 500+/- range. In all cases battalia would be composed of several companies of shot and pike.

Terminology of the period is fluid: regiment is a collective name for the troops raised by a colonel and not necessarily synonymous with a tactical unit. Division is a generic term for a collection of units and throughout the 17th and 18th C can be applied at almost any command level.

For rules there are many, and some of the big names and classics have already been mentioned. As always rules are a very personal thing - I'm a big fan of the new Baroque rules from Dadi & Piombo and have just about finished my painting project for the year so there will be photos of the armies in the next couple of weeks  

In the meantime have fun, and I'd agree on the comment about including the TYW in the mix - if you turn a blind eye to some of the minutiae you only need a minimum of additional units.

[mollinary]

Hi Paul,

ECW has fascinated me since I was a lad (a long,  long, long time ago!  ).   My first armies (more like companies really) were 25 mm Minifigs with all Parliamentarians in Lobster Pot helmets, including the foot, and the Royalists with feathery hats!  Over the last 20years I have been building Armies in 10mm, and now they are large enough to have actually taken the field at 1:1 in some of the smaller engagements of the war.  I have looked at, and tried, numerous rule systems over  the years, and none has ever properly scratched my itch. I probably have more than twenty different sets gathering dust on my shelves.  My figures are based on squares originally designed to adapt Volley and Bayonet to the ECW, as they were very much my sort of simple, fun, big battle rules.  My interest has always been to try and fight the large battles,, and so I have gone through the process you are going through now, with regard to standard units.  Consensus is not a word used very often with regard to the ECW, but in so much as one has been reached on foot units, it is around the 400-600 strong battalia, combining pike and shot (who seem to have been formed in companies combining both types) as forming the bulk of the battle line. Units of commanded musketeers seem to have been used quite often, usually for particular tasks involving terrain unsuited to pike (woods, hedges, rough, broken ground). Individual units could be almost any size, but in some actions the commanded musketeers could number over a thousand.  Horse units are also difficult. Formed in troops, squadrons, regiments, divisions, they could be of almost any size, particularly as the war progressed.  I have found a unit representing roughyl 200-300 horse as about the most suitable for big battles, and could represent half a large Regiment, or a combination of a number of regiments.  As to where I am now on rules, I am working with Simon Miller to convert his To the Strongest Ancient rules into an ECW set, currently called for King and Parliament.  I found these rules great fun for Ancients, simple grid based mechanisms, and capable of playing large battles in a manageable time. We have been going for about eight months now, and I think we are approaching a set which the world might be allowed to see! I managed to play Edgehill last week, with three players new to the rules, in about four hours. About 2,000 figures on the table. A hard fought Royalist victory, with it tight all the way to the end. 

It is a great period, and I wish you well if choose it.

Mollinary

[fsn]

Oooh! ECW! It is something I look at regularly. It's colourful with lots of different troop types and a reasonably good set of sources. You may also be lucky enough to live somewhere where the battlefields are within visiting distance (though probably not a lot to look at.) It does offer great battles, small clashes and sieges.

A great period, and I hope you'll keep us up to date with your progress.

[Zippee]

I am working with Simon Miller to convert his To the Strongest Ancient rules into an ECW set, currently called for King and Parliament. 
Mollinary

Isn't that on oxymoron? 

Shouldn't it be "or" 

I'll be interested in seeing how this project ends up, I like TTS (although I play Impetus more frequently) I do wonder though about army size, TTS is generally for pretty big battles and most of the ECW was small to moderate. I'd have thought the TYW a better fit - although I guess it's all a bit moot at the abstracted level.

[mollinary]

Isn't that on oxymoron? 

Shouldn't it be "or" 

I'll be interested in seeing how this project ends up, I like TTS (although I play Impetus more frequently) I do wonder though about army size, TTS is generally for pretty big battles and most of the ECW was small to moderate. I'd have thought the TYW a better fit - although I guess it's all a bit moot at the abstracted level.

That was actually the point!  There were a lot of confused people out there, and it did appear as a motto on a cavalry standard in 1642.  Still it is only a working title. Any better ideas, preferably equally non partisan, welcome! In playtests. we have produced a scenario with c10 units a side (Montgomery), an imaginary one set in 1643 Borsetshire with 16-18 units, and Naseby and Edgehill with 25-45 units a side. All have given good games, and the mid sized one plays out, with my 10mm figures in units 120mm wide, on a 6x4 table in 2-3 hours.   The little metal guys are getting exhausted at all these trips to the table!

Mollinary

[paulr]

Thanks all for the useful info and comments so far

Plenty to ponder while I paint the rest of my crusades project and the rest of my Age of Sail ships :-