"Which SIMPLE ECW Rules Give Best Flavor ???" Topic

Start with the idea that I'm looking for relatively simple rules . . . ones that people with no experience can pick up pretty quickly . . . and that play quickly.

Which set of ECW rules fitting the above will give the best "flavor" of the period?

I'm looking for 25mm rules, but can probably adjust from other scales.

-- Jeff

Jeff,

We've been playing these rules for years. They are quick and easy to use. Although they are geared for 15mm, you should be able to upgrade the distances to 25mm without much of a problem.

link

And a mini-campaign we played with them starts here:

link

Jim

Might of Arms by Bob Bryant! Drop me a line off list and I'll send you the ECW quick reference sheet. 1 page/front and back is all you'll need. Simple, easy to learn, easy to play without all the ancillary BS that takes up time in a game…the game gets to business and gets to a conclusion!

Steve Miller
DFW Irregulars
pilum40@sbcglobal.net

"Ironsides" by Howard Whitehouse. Easy, fast mechanics and defensible results. The last game we played included include four platers, two of which had no knowledge of the ECW. All had a great time and the newbies stated that it produced the most well-balanced, nail-biting game in which they had ever participated.

Jon

Ironsides" by Howard Whitehouse… you just line up the troops, and roll d6's to kill figures…

Excerpt Melee… Roll 1D6 for each base and commander in the melee. Both sides should roll at the same time. Musketeers and Dragoons hit on a roll of 6, pikemen hit on a roll of 5 or 6. Cavalry hits on a 4, 5 or 6 on the first round of melee.

Excerpt Shooting… Roll 1D6 per stand and remove one enemy base for each 6 rolled. Pike bases may not fire.

Howard is an old mate of mine… his rule system was a for-runner and embraced by Gamesworkshop's Yahtzee/Ludo rules. Principles of War give a decent easy to learn/play game

link

Perhaps is we knew which aspects of theECW you consider to be the essential flavor we could give beter answers.

Polemos ECW gives a good feel for slow cumbersome manuver, largely innefective cannon fire, and things being resolved at the sharp end.

Warammer ECW ives quite a different feel, featuring lots of emphasis on "chrome" and clolour.

The Perfect Captains Very Civile Actions are unmatched if you like smaller actions, and have a brilliant campaign system.

Piquet Anchor of Faith is excellent if you like Piquet.

So really it comes down to what are you looking for in a rule set. I haven't even mentioned 1644, Too Fat Lardies, Peter Pig or numeous other sets.

Regiment of Foot by RFCM (Peter Pig)slows down a bit to do the hand to hand combat but apart from that really good. No one has played with our club an not understood the rules within the first game.

Forlorn Hope looks like a really good set for the flavor of the period but the masses of tables always puts me off.

If anyone wants a Word Doc of "Ironsides" (version from 1998, reformatted a bit today), please email me at professorbellbuckle@yahoo.com.

I likea freeware set that was published in MWAN-"Declare Thee Sir!" I forget the issue but I'm sure someone can help.

Donald~

WECW got me back into it after a very long hiatus. Simple, fast and bloody.

A second for Regiment of Foote. Easy to understand and play and captures the command and control issues of the time.

Dave,

I'm not a Brit, I'm just exploring the ECW for the first time . . . and finding it fascinating. Of particular interest are the diverse personalities of the various generals . . . so I wouldn't want "plain" generals.

I also don't want to see "cookie cutter" units. From my reading, regiments varied greatly in both size and quality . . . so I'd like to see that in the rules.

Finally I don't want to be playing a generic rule set that simply adds pikes to make it a "pike and shot" rule set . . . I want the tactics and limitations of the period to be reflected in the rule mechanics.

What I do NOT want is something like the many Napoleonic rule sets that have been backward-engineered to serve as SYW sets (where the tactics aren't right and light troops behave unhistorically).

I also am looking for a rule set geared to smaller battles.

-- Jeff

Jeff, how small a battle do you want?

Irregular Wars link (which I have been touting to try and get some feedback from the wider community!?) is geared for armies between 500 and 1,000 men. It's aimed at a slightly earlier period (1558-1625) but could easily be brought up to ECW with a couple of tweaks.

Fast, simple play based on the resolve of individual companies.

HarryHotspur,

I generally prefer 8-12 maneuver units per side. That allows for enough players' skill to show without overwhelming anyone.

-- Jeff

"I also don't want to see "cookie cutter" units. From my reading, regiments varied greatly in both size and quality . . . so I'd like to see that in the rules."

While that is true in respect of regiments, in practice regiments of different sizes were brigaded together to form field units of a more or less similar size.
See:
TMP link

Jeff,

I'll second Mike's comments above. You know my particular area of interest is in the French of this period, not the ECW specifically, but you have to rememeber that virtually all of the major commanders in the ECW were trained and gained their experience in French, Dutch, Swedish, Imperialist, Spanish or other Continental service. And, as Mike has said, the "battalion" was a tactical formation that could be (in France's case) 1/3rd of the Gardes Francaises or the remnants of three regiments "brigaded" together to form a tactical unit of between 500 and 600 men. It's one of the things that makes researching Orbats for specific battles so difficult, Turenne may have combined the survivors of 3 English Regiments into one tactical "battalion" for Entzheim, or 2 understrength Regiments into one at the 2nd Dunes in 1658. And Condé certainly did the same thing at Rocroi in 1643, where 22 actual Regiments were formed into only 18 "battalions" of roughly equal strength. Plus, "commanded shot" were stripped from some of the larger units to operate with the cavalry following the Swedish Model, the same thing the English did with Forlorne Hope's in the ECW.

If you don't want to use a standardised tactical unit, or a "cookie cutter" as you put it, your best choice of rules might be either George Gush's "Wargame Rules for 15th to 17th Century" (still available on ebay cheap and I believe also still available through The Keep in the UK) or Bill Protz's "Wargamer's Guide to the ECW" (available directly from Bill, like BAR). Gush uses a 1:20 ratio and Bill's rules allow variable ratio's (like BAR) so that you can tailor specific units to slightly different strengths, and they both work well for smaller actions or multi-player large games.

If you can live with the standardised unit, then I'll second Steve's comments above (pilum40) about the modified version of Bob Bryant's Might of Arms. I've seen the ECW mod's and played a couple of test scenario's and they work well. If you're not familiar with MoA, it's a little like a fast-play version of WRG 6th Edition. Steve recently demo'd these at a local Con and had newbies playing. Within a couple of turns they were using just the 2-page QR sheet to play with. No figure removal, units accumulate fatigue points and can start falling apart pretty rapidly when bad things happen. The play is very straightforward and they adapt well to the period. Also, since combat and fire take place by the stand (or actually double stand for the ECW), you can place as many or as few figures on the stand as you wish to give an appearance of variable unit sizes. The "ideal" foot unit is three double stands (60 X 60 in 25/28mm and 40 X 40 in 15/18mm) with 6 figures in 2 ranks on each stand. If you want to use just 5 musketeers on a stand or tighten your pikes up with 7 to 9 figures with command and standards, no problem.

Take care My Friend.

Bill Mc
"Sir William the Aged"
www. warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

Bill,

I do feel that in the pike and matchlock period that the former should be more tightly bunched than the latter.

My thought is that matchlocks would keep more distance between them than the later flintlocks would because of the dangers of accidental discharges from a neighbor's match.

Because of this, one of my thoughts is (depending upon the rules of course) to use magnetic bases with small diameter washers for the pikes and large diameter washers for the matchlocks . . . well, if it works out okay.

-- Jeff

pilum40,

I emailed you the request for the MOA-ECW rules per your post two days ago, but haven't heard back. You might want to check your spam filter and see if it got caught there.

In any event, my email is . . . bluebear at uniserve dot com . . . and with Bill's further recommendation, I do want to see them. Will I need to get a copy of Might of Arms (since I don't have one) in order to understand them?

-- Jeff

Jeff

You could always try 'For Parliament, King or Glory', which are a free set of rule's, easy to use and a have a fair bit of historical info, ideal for someone new to the period or gaming.

groups.yahoo.com/group/pkg

I,ll second "For Parliament,King or Glory"

Hi Jeff having fired and number matchlocks and firelocks The spacing is really not that different. The hazard comes not from the match but the powder shot out of the pan. That is why modern re-enactors use flash guards. The only time you need a greater distance between files is when you are firing and counter marching.

I did manage to singe my beard own while tying my helmet on that's about it for match injuries.

Jeff,

Check out section 5 on this link:

link

It's Dr. Pierre Picouet's excellent site, "Tercio", which covers the combat tactics and organisation of not only the Spanish, but the Swedish, Dutch and French methods as well, with some excellent diagrams that include frontage information. As Charles says above, the issue of spacing was not usually safety, but to allow for countermarch firing methods. Dr. Picouet provides some good diagrams of the most common firing methods of the period, by rank, by file or by salvo (the Swedish method in his terminology).

I don't know if you're planning on doing this solo or with a group, but you would need one copy of the basic rules and then Steve's QR sheets for each player. The good news is that they are an excellent set of Ancient rules to begin with, and there are modifications already made for the Italian Wars and I'm working on a set for the Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-French Wars from 1640 to 1670. They're really similar to Steve's mod's for the ECW, but we're dealing (for the most part) with more disciplined regular regiments and fewer variables. You can also join the LoA Yahoo Group, which has Steve's QR sheets and the Italian Wars info in the Files section. And Bob actively participates on this Group as well, so you can get pretty immediate feedback on questions. Here's the link:

link

Bill Mc

That should of course be the "Franco-Spanish Wars" and the "MoA Yahoo Group". The mind orders, the fingers refuse to follow, I shall need to take an immediate reaction test on myself! I may be Shaken ;-)

Bill

I have at least 10 sets of rules sitting here and I have decided I am going to base my figures all one particualr way and then try all of the rules keeping the same bases until i find a set that i like. I think this is the only way. Advice form fellow TMPers is valuable but it needs to be backed up by your own experience. Ultimately you cant know if a set of rule are good for you until you have actually used them a few times to gain a feeling for them.

Old Robin,

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who would be interested in your opinions after your experiment.

Can you share with us just which rule sets you have?

-- Jeff

Your message got stuck in my spam filter crap bin with the offers of making millions from home, etc. I've put the data on an external hard drive and the power supply has crapped out this AM. I'll send it once the power supply gets replaced.

Steve,

Check your filter for an e-mail from me as well. If you're just sending Jeff the two QR sheets you produced, I have them saved and can send them to him. If you're also sending him any of the other Group files on the ECW, let me know which ones and I can send those too.

Bill

Would you please send Jeff the QRS then? Thanks! A perfect technology storm today!

D3 (Done Deal Dude!) Get back to me after you get your PC problems worked out.

Bill

Bill,

I got the QRS . . . Thank you . . . and sent you an email about the other stuff you mentioned.

Steve,

I got the information from Bill . . . and I know how frustrating those filters can be . . . it turns out that I've missed out on millions of dollars myself . . . .

Thanks, guys. I don't know if MoA will be the answer I'm looking for or not; but I appreciate your help.

-- Jeff

For a good set of rules that do not require rebasing, Polemos has a relatively simple set of ECW rules written by the same author who wrote the more complicated Forlorn Hope. It has an intriguing way of representing the problems of command control using tempo points. Also, I can second the recommendation for For Parliament, King, or Glory, a free set that uses a well-tested base system and is free. It also uses activations. Finally, Renaissance Warfare covers the ECW, and does so with a good orders system.

Lots to choose from, and each rules set has something to recommend it.

Summarizing so far . . . 15 rule sets have been suggested . . . two by three different posters, four by two posters; and the rest by only one poster. (Note: I'll list them alphabetically within their categories).

Mentioned three times:

For Parliament, King and Glory
Ironsides

Mentioned twice:

Might of Arms ECW variant
Polemos ECW
Regiment of Foote
Warhammer ECW

Mentioned by only one poster:

Anchor of Faith
Charge yr Pikes
Declare Thee Sir
Irregular Wars
Renaissance Warfare
Tercio
Very Civile Actions
Wargame Rules for 15th to 17th Century (Gush)
Wargamer's Guide to the ECW

Does anyone have any further recommendations or additions to the above list?

-- Jeff

I also have 1644, DBR, Victory without Quarter, Pike and Shot, This Accursed Civil War (A warmaster variant) and For Parliament and King. With so many rules why is it so hard to find the set that suits me? Im fussy i guess)
@ Jeff of SaxeBearstein- I will indeed keep you updated on the experiment. For the record these are the ruleset I have and plan to try at various times;
1644
For Parliament, King and Glory
Ironsides
Tercio
Very Civile Actions
Wargame Rules for 15th to 17th Century (Gush)
Father Tilly
Victory without Quarter
Pike and Shot
This Accursed Civil War (A warmaster variant)
For Parliament and King.
DBR.

Thank you, Old Robin.

Okay, Gentlemen, you've seen Old Robin's list and the summary page that I posted just before Old Robin's post . . . so do any of these rules inspire further comments?

Remember I'm looking for a relatively simple set that give the flavor of the ECW period. I'm looking to fight reasonably small actions (not the big battles); and I'll be using 25mm figures (although rules for a different scale might be adjustable).

So, what do you have to say?

-- Jeff

I wouldn't rate Forlorn Hope, Gush (WRG) or Tercio as simple. None are fast to play. Of them all I liked FH for feel but it drove me nuts playing as its so clunky. WRG was a bit sterile but OK and Tercio was too complex for its own good and certainly not fun. IMHO they are all quite involved sets to play. Polemos was quick to play but I found it a bit lack lustre.

I'm not convinced enough by any ECW set anymore to actually want to play the period. I keep bashing about some ideas for a set purely for my own amusement but getting nowhere fast and am really waiting to see what the TFL come up with but I feel I might be waiting a while. As far as I'm aware the project isn't high on their 'must do' list atm.

Two other sets:

Victory without quarter – looks fun but yet to play
There is an ECW version of Impetus that might be worth a look

This issue had plagued me for 30+ years. ECW was my first real wargame period – and I've never found a rule set that works all the angles I want.

I've played Victory without Quarter and found I liked them. The issue I hit is that I could not really play with all my toys. The rules really favor a smaller game as the random movement can take up too much time with too many units.

Another idea which I tried is Warmaster. Written for 10mm figures, it's not hard to adjust Warmaster to 28mm. The command control system seems to be a love it or hate thing. I'm in the "love it" school. However, Warmaster units need to be arranged in groups of 3 stands (nothing to say you can't divide your units in 3 however you base them). We liked it – but did not love it.

Recently we've played 2 large games on a hexed table using Command & Colors Ancients rules with home grown modifiers for the ECW. So far, this system has won acclaim from the wargame group. It's fast, the combat is furious and entertaining. I can use all of my figures (it's just a matter of cramming them into 6" hexes). I need to see if I can create a "point" system so that we can try campaign battles. If that works, maybe a trip through Scruttockshire is not too far off. (just testing the 1644 fans out there)

BC

Quit "richarding around" and play something. :)

I ditched Victory without Quarter because it was broken for larger multiplayer games. I amended MoA because it freekin' works, is simple and easy to teach. 1644 sucks other than my "red copy" has an interesting campaign section. I don't need complex systems, just like to get the toys on the table, roll some bones, drink copious amounts of libations and HAVE FUN!
This rule set amendment fits that category.

Come on Steve,

We've known each other over 30 years now and closed more than a couple of bars and tournaments together, so I feel I can try and help you with this. You really have to stop being so shy and let people know what your opinion is! I'm telling you dude, just put your feelings out there, take a chance…

Bill ;-)

BC,

Any chance of sharing your home grown modifiers for C&C Ancients, and thereby expanding the number of true believers? I started to do this about a year ago, and it was showing promise, but it got swamped when other projects raised their heads. The system of two flanks and centre seem ideal for ECW pitched battles, and most of the unit types seem to translate pretty easily to ECW. I would be tempted to use Heavy, Medium and Auxiliary largely as categories to reflect quality rather than armament among the infantry, but I suppose the system is flexible enough to do both. I also toyed with the idea of using a concept of "Warrior Cavalry" to represent early war Royalists, what do you think?

Mollinary

Heres a different idea- I'm using "Beneath the Lilly Banners" for ECW. It's fast, easy to play- I can teach it to a table full of newbies at a con in no time. It's a fun game.

--Mark

Mark,

What, if any, changes or additions do you make to BLB to give it an ECW flavor as opposed to a LoA flavor?

-- Jeff

Mollinary

I have a spreadsheet that we use. If you contact me at brian.carroll@thomson.com I'll email it to you. I just pulled a sheet off of the web for BattleCry and adjusted. We play CCancients pretty much as written except for some pursuit rules. Our first two games did not really try to differentiate on Quality. I like the idea of using medium / light / Heavy to do that – but unless you are dealing with CCA veterans, my guess is that the players might get confused at first. I will probably use a more Memoir44 approach and say that raw troops can only take 3 hits etc. I love the Warrior cavalry idea – sounds perfect. I'm trying to work on a point system so that we can move these battles to a campaign setting

Back to topic – I too would be interested in seeing how Under the Lily Banners would work as ECW. I plan to buy them at some point. I think their standardized units will fit in with my new found need to use a hex based board.

Brian

To be clear about it, "Under the Lily Banners" is the name of an older, free version of Barry Hilton's rules.

The name was changed to "Beneath the Lily Banners" with the commercial version because the earlier title is also the name of a board game.

Also, I asked if anyone had tried it on the "League of Augsburg" Forum . . . and so far (after 49 views) no one has admitted to trying them . . . so I don't know how well they'd adapt to the ECW.

-- Jeff

Jeff, see me commnet on the lilly banners for ecw discussion on this forum

I think with some tweeking, you have a very good set of rules for ecw in utlb

cheers

chas

I agree with Raggedroyalist. We must first understand that UTLB is not BTLB. Barry has tweeked his original set enough so that both sets do not play alike. His new set is a very fun,fast game (it has only a single cheat sheet). His cav, dragoon, and artillery rules fit directly into the ECW. The only minor changes are in the infantry combat section. I do believe his event cards are pure genius. They keep the slow end of the table hopping.

Brian,

Many thanks for that, I'll e-mail shortly. Other things I have considered are: number of blocks per unit varying, perhaps in accord with historical OOBs (not really sure of this, and the scope would be quite limited, about 3-5 for infantry I would think); do you represent Cuirassiers? Depending on the scale of the game I was thinking they might be a 2 block unit (like elephants or heavy chariots), have the same number of hit dice as other cavalry, move as Heavy Cavalry, but ignore sword hits. This would mean they are no more effective than other cavalry in offence, but have an armour advantage. Anyway, many thnaks for your help.

Andrew

Your list is missing Warfare in the Age of Discovery by the same folk who did Warfare in the Age of Reason. Relatively easy to learn and play.

To jump in, igf I may, What have you for opinions on A Very Civile Actions? It looks intriguing to me but I have not yet played it. Also, I am in the 1.32 scale

Rupertwannabe,

I have never played them; but Angus Konstam has played them fairly extensively . . . see his write-up on them:

link

He also has numerous game reports in his "Edinburgh Wargames Journals" . . . see the links to them at the bottom of the above page.

-- Jeff

I suggest Repent or Die from Hoplite Press. And Volley & Bayonet has a lot of potential to be modified.