"Early War ECW - Pike to shot ratio?" Topic

For early war armies what should the p:r ratio be? Still trying to find a set of rules that give mne the feel fr the period as well,

Cheers

Do you have Warhammer ECW rules book ?

I can sell it to you if you want.
My book is a new one, just bought one month ago.

Half price + postal costs ?

"For early war armies what should the p:r ratio be?"

By "p:r" I assume you mean pikes to muskets. For the avoidance of doubt I will use m:p below.

The aim was always to get 2m:1p but early in the war this was not always achievable. On the whole Parliamentarian units were more often able to get 2m:1p than Royalist units. Indeed, early in the war, a number of Royalist units were more likely to be 1m:1p.

thank you Mike, I did indeed mean p:m but a brain fade is my excuse. Thank for the info

Hi Date

My free English Civil War rules 'For Paliament, King or Glory' give details of pike to shot ratios.

You can download them from yahoo.groups/group/PKG

Even if you don't use the rules, they may provide you with some useful info.

Cheers

Sorry got the link wrong.

groups.yahoo.com/group/PKG

I'm not convinced that the outcome of ECW warfare was that effected by these factors. Other than specific instances when either all pike (Landsdown) or all musket formations (often) were employed I'm not too bothered about ratios and think we (collectively) as gamers have got too hung up on them as a feature of ECW warfare and as a method of defining how combat effective our units are.

"I'm not too bothered about ratios and think we (collectively) as gamers have got too hung up on them as a feature of ECW warfare and as a method of defining how combat effective our units are."

I would agree with that. My current ECW rules do not take the p:m ratio into account except where the unit is all pike or all musket as you suggest.

I like the sound of that…..any chance of getting a look at those rules Mike?

Mike and Timmo, wouldn't it make a big difference to melee factor if 3/4 of your foote were pikes, as opposed to 1/2?

And wouldn't fire factor be far larger if 3/4 of your foote were shotte, as opposed to 50%?

huevans – I agree with all the rest, the exact ratio is generally overstated. However, I agree that representing direpower levels should make some difference. Peter Pig's Regiment of Foote organizes regiments by bases of pike and shot, and they shoot and melee differently, which is enough for me.

Forlorn Hope uses a ratio for a regiment, and that affects its melee and shooting ability.

Of the two, I prefer RoF's way of doing it.

I'm not convinced that the outcome of ECW warfare was that effected by these factors.

But I believe those in the ECW did. As the wars continued the musket to pike ratios increased. The pike was losing ground as the "queen of the field".

However, I do agree that there is little use in memorizing and therefore deploying specific ratios of these weapons. Armies fielded what they had, and they would always want more. Mike is correct in stating that Royalists were usually short on muskets and gunpowder, with Scottish Royalists even more so.

And finally, I think most rules treat units with a 1:2 M/P ratio differently from a unit with a 2:1 M/P ratio.

Ralph

Regiment of Foot seems to deal with these issues in a much simpler way than Forlorn Hope. Highlanders are really unreliable.

Rich.

Royalists were usually short on muskets and gunpowder, with Scottish Royalists even more so.

I thought the Scottish Royalists were also pretty short on pike – as well as on horse, artillery and pretty much everything else (except possibly Higlanders).

I thought the Scottish Royalists were also pretty short on pike – as well as on horse, artillery and pretty much everything else (except possibly Higlanders)…

…and wheezing gas bags to play music.
:)

While I understand that Royalists were short on gear at times, I think that highlanders would come pretty well armed for the type of fighting they usually did the most of, so perhaps more melee and pistol/carbine weapons, even arquebusts, etc. As such, they might not be as "regularly" equipped as a new model musketeer, but they'd be "well armed" for violent activities!

There were probably not all that many firearms in the Highland contingents of Montrose's armies – spears, axes & swords were more likely (& not the monstrous claymore of popular mythology either).

Pike to musket ratios would be important if your rules allow the musket to operate as semi independant sub units. Forelorn Hope doesn't do this hence (I assume) the use of the ratio. The ability to throw musketeers forward as a seperate body would require you to have a decent proportion of shot available and so you would have to know roughly how many you have in each regiment.

If your rules are more brigade orientated then the ratio can be abstracted. If the rules tactical unit is the battalion then it becomes more important to have the right proportion of shot.

Depends on the amy, the area and the make-up of regiments. However most seem to try to be 1:2 (P:M) when they could.

Actually Forlorn Hope does allow for musket only units, at a ratio of 1:0 for melee(nasty if caught by a formed body of pikemen). Not quite the same thing as 'commanded shotte' but it would allow units to function as such, with the detachment of a portion of the battalion.

I agree with Mike Snorbens post. Like Mike, I'm not concerned with ratios at all. It's unit morale; attenuated by the hail of lead, noise and confusion and lack of communication between officers and rankers that intrigue me. That's why I amended Bob Bryant's MoA rules to fit the period.

"I like the sound of that…..any chance of getting a look at those rules Mike?"

The rules are "Victory Without Quarter" by Richard Brooks. Available in The Nugget, issue 199, here:

link

(I actually use 1 figure to 100 men rather than Richard's 1:200, but the rules work the same)

Mike,

Mr. Brooks "Victory Without Quarter" rules appear to be quite different from Clarence Harrison's better-known "Victory Without Quarter" rules:

quindia.com/studioart12.htm

-- Jeff

"Mr. Brooks "Victory Without Quarter" rules appear to be quite different from Clarence Harrison's better-known "Victory Without Quarter" rules:"

Yes, they are. I don't think I implied they were similar. They just happen to have the same name.

No, you didn't imply that they were similar . . . I was just pointing out that there are two different rule sets with that name . . . in hopes that people don't get them confused.

-- Jeff