Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Don McHugh

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Player Discussion / Re: Shooting New QRS
« on: April 23, 2020, 02:49:25 PM »
Quote
2) Minus for all shooting against mounted. Just seems like the opposite of what you would expect and what most rules tend to do (ie being on a horse makes you more vulnerable to shooting, not less). Is it intended to represent the nervousness of foot shooters in the presence of mounted? Perhaps then it should only apply at close range.

This was always the case with FoGR.

Don

2
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 16, 2020, 09:59:26 AM »
I wonder if what we currently think of as being a melee, is the final stages of a prolonged fire-fight.

Maybe it should be very difficult for two bodies of foot to charge each other, unless one is disordered or one is badly effected by casualties?

Don

3
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 16, 2020, 08:00:51 AM »
With the talk of Naseby yesterday, I knew I had read something about it in my current book 'Cavaliers' by John Barratt. In his chapter on 'The Foot' he talks about the Royalist foot using the Swedish tactics and in particular at Naseby, this is what he says on page 45.

'The pattern of unearthed musket shot at Naseby confirms the picture of a ferocious Royalist onslaught pushing the numerically superior Parliamentarian foot back for a considerable distance before momentum was lost, partly because of the inability of the Royalists to commit sufficient reserves. The Initial salvee and melee was followed by a prolonged exchange of fire, in which the greater Parliamentarian numbers had a decisive advantage.'

This doesn't sound like a melee as wargamers perceive them, as no Parliamentarian foot routed from this exchange.

I think the new rules for 'fire fights' models this situation well. We may need to consider certain Royalists foot units having an initial firing bonus, as a way to model this, but I would want to do some more reading before such a suggestion.

Don

4
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 15, 2020, 03:12:37 PM »

I totally agree with you - but that leaves those two questions. Firstly why did gaps work in period? Secondly what rule would encourage wargamers to use gaps?

Indeed, very pertinent questions. Has any rule set for this period really tackled them effectively?

To be fair I think Alasdair and Simon are trying to do this and are very open to new ideas.

Don

5
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 15, 2020, 12:01:04 PM »
On the swapping of infantry lines could I offer this account from Naseby written by somebody on the Parliamentarian side:

Quote
Almost all the rest of the main Battail being overpressed, gave ground and went off in some disorder, falling behinde the Reserves;

Yes, but was this falling back through the gaps in the first line and then recovering behind the front line, than behind a specific unit?

I am sorry but I just don't see such an interpenetration like  this happening in any kind of a controlled way, while engaged in a fire fight with the enemy.

Don

There is something in this period that I just don't get (and I realise I know much less about this period than Don or Nik). It seems that the units deployed with large gaps (battalions with battalion sized gaps between them?). If you did this in a wargame (under almost any rules) your opponent would just gang up on one unit with two. Wargamers always seem to end up with pretty solid lines because anything less is sub-optimal firing. So what are we missing that made those gaps work in the period?

From my recent ECW reading it is pretty clear that infantry only fought what we call a 'melee' when they ran low on powder.
Unfortunately wargamers only do what the rules allow them to do in order to win the game.
It is job of the rules to make sure the troops fight in an historic way.

Don

6
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 3. Cavalry fall back
« on: April 15, 2020, 11:54:52 AM »

I wonder if this might also solve the "uselessness" of mounted carbine troops that I saw suggested in another thread. If they can be driven back through other troops they might become more like skirmishing shooters. Would they also need to be able to interpenetrate friendly mounted when evading though?

At Roundway Down the situation you describe caused the down fall of the Roundheads right flank. Haselrig's unit rode forward firing their carbine and pistols before contact and engaging in melee. The melee lasted for sometime before the Royalist broke off, being unable to break into the tightly packed ranks of the Roundheads. It was only when Haselrig's unit was attacked by a fresh line of Royalists cavalry and pushed back into it's supports, causing the whole to fall into disorder, that the Roundhead flank fled.

Don

7
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 15, 2020, 11:44:14 AM »
Bit difficult for me to contribute if there are discussions outside the forum.

Hit the nail on the head there.

As I don't have a very good knowledge of the rules, with the work I am doing on the ECW lists and the vast amount of reading I am doing, I have emailed them to see if the rules currently cover certain situations. If they do not, then I leave it to them to decide what they want to do.

I am currently reading the 'Cavalier' book recommended by Nik.

Don

8
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 15, 2020, 11:37:26 AM »
On the swapping of infantry lines could I offer this account from Naseby written by somebody on the Parliamentarian side:

Quote
Almost all the rest of the main Battail being overpressed, gave ground and went off in some disorder, falling behinde the Reserves;

Yes, but was this falling back through the gaps in the first line and then recovering behind the front line, than behind a specific unit?

I am sorry but I just don't see such an interpenetration like  this happening in any kind of a controlled way, while engaged in a fire fight with the enemy.

Don

9
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 1. Unit size
« on: April 15, 2020, 09:08:01 AM »
Hi

I thought I would post some suggestions that came out of games and discussions before the lockdown.

Firstly unit sizes, particularly for Pike and Shot units. In FOGR they had to be in 6's because there were two pike and four shot bases. But in REG every base in a pike and shot unit is the same - so they could be in 4's or 6's or 8's. This would allow a lot more flexibility in writing lists and giving units properties (eg flexibility vs strength) and would make an aspect of REG feel more varied (almost all units in 6's is a bit bland)

In terms of historical representation TUGs are meant to be collections of regiments (or other smaller units) so a larger TUG is just a collection of more regiments. In terms of figures one way to represent it would be for 8's to have four pike bases and 4's to have two pike bases in the back rank. But I'm sure there are other ways (In 10mm or smaller scales you could have pike and shot on every base)

By the way this isn't my idea, it came out of discussion but I can't remember whose it is. I'm just publicising, not claiming credit.

Dave P

Problem with this is the visuals. All contemporary pictures show musketeers deployed around a central body of pikemen, roughly divided by 1/3. Were the ECW is concerned most infantry were deployed in bodies of between 500 and 600 men. Larger units were often broken into two formations.

Don

10
Player Discussion / Re: Rules suggestions - 2. Infantry swap places
« on: April 15, 2020, 09:02:54 AM »
Couple of questions for the new rules.

1) Can poor supports take the wounds for Superior front troops? You might just get a layer of crap at the back acting as support.

2) Units can pass  through friends if driven back by fire but do they cause KABs if interpenetrating otherwise (eg by breaking). You might end up with the situation of enemy trying to approach weaker units without shooting to avoid driving them back and get into combat with  them and then get burst throughs etc

Again playtesting will show if these are problems

1. My understanding is the supports can only take 1 of the casualties, so shouldn't be a problem.

2. From what I have read within the ECW, this being forced back on your supports and disordering them, often lead to total disaster.
I can't think of any cases of infantry changing places with it supports. Are we sure we are not mistaking this, for the supports filling in the intervals within the first line of Infantry.

The situation for cavalry falling back is completely different and I discussed this in a recent email to Alasdair and Simon.

Don

11
Bibliography and Sources / Helion Century of the Soldier
« on: April 07, 2020, 09:58:59 PM »
I have just finished reading 'The Most Heavy Stroke' The battle of Roundway Down and it was another excellent read. Well researched and lots of information.

If you haven't seen these books they cover not only the ECW but also Europe. I can only speak for the 4 ECW books I have read, but I will be buying more.

Don

12
Modelling and Eye Candy / Re: ECW Royalists
« on: March 27, 2020, 07:51:36 AM »
Looking very good.

Don

13
Modelling / Nostalgic 25mm ECW Royalists
« on: March 26, 2020, 08:29:52 AM »
I have been working on refurbishing my 30 year old collection for over a year now.
Most of the infantry are Minifigs and the cavalry Hinchliffe, Garrison and Courvs.


This is a Wargames Foundry King with a Courvs standard beraer. Flag is Flags of war


Hero or Villan? Courvs figures.


Rupert's Lifeguard. Old Garrison figures.


Unknown Royalist regiment at Marston Moor. Old Garrison figures.


Royalist regiment. Courvs figures.


The King's Lifeguard. Courvs figures.


The Queen's Lifeguard. Courvs figures.

Don

14
Player Discussion / Re: Which would the lesser of two weevils?
« on: March 26, 2020, 08:21:14 AM »
Atleast one of the units I'll do for the traitors sorry parliamentiarns is an Essex unit less Ford escort upgrade :) just because they have orange.

'traitors' sorry sounds like bad looser  :) :)

Don

15
Player Discussion / Re: Which would the lesser of two weevils?
« on: March 25, 2020, 10:55:48 AM »
Besides Haselrig's there are a number of other Roundhead Lifeguard units, in particular Essex's .

However these units will be very small as little at 50 - 150 real men.

Don

Pages: [1] 2 3 4