Which rules are suggested for ECW?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

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

[gregernest]

I'm all about FoG-R, but that's me. 

[Hertsblue]

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.

[GordonY]

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!!!!!! 

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

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Sounds great fun, why has no one told me about this before! 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Cause we want to keep you mad.

IanS 

[FierceKitty]

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.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

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

[Hertsblue]

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. 

[FierceKitty]

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.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

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

[FierceKitty]

I'm aware that is what the fellow must have intended. It isn't what the words on the page say.