"Looking for WSS rules" Topic

Looking for opinions.
solo gamer with a 6'x5' playing area.
figure scale: whatever is the most easily obtainable
game scale: not picky-divisions,corps,skirmish whatever
rules difficulty: would prefer middle of the road but would rather go with more detail than less
I would prefer not to have to buy 4 or 5 books to be able to play
Thanks

BLBv2 when it comes out…should be soon!

P.

Black Powder – useful for a whole load of horse/musket periods.

Sorry it is not a complex set.

Gå På

King of the Battlefield.

Foe solo or when playing with someone who likes the period..
Marlborough s'en va-t-en guerre at link
at club nights or for a less involved bash than Black Powder is fine.

Impetus with the free 'Le Roi Soleil' add on

Good quality, free rules for download -

From the estimable Simon MacDowell:

link

Or the redoubtable Angus Konstam:

link

(towards the bottom of the page, "Lullibulero")

Twilight of the Sun King is good.

Might and Reason with the free Sun King module.

Beneath the Lilly Banners is still available for ten bucks from Scale Creep for the 1st edition.

Grand Ambition would be fine if you like single based figures (or don't mind marking hits)

Thanks for the help so far. I was under the impression that you needed a large table for Black Powder? Larger then what I have.

Go with Beneath the Lily Banners (BLB) version #2 when it comes out. Should be out very soon. You can go to the League of Augsburg site for questions and general discussion of the period and the rules.

link

To avoid buying books, you could check out what's on here, for free:

freewargamesrules.co.uk

Pete Jones is Da Man. He's been up there since '97 like that.
He's got the links to the original TSK, and to 2x2 for 2mm, and the Mambru se fue a la guerra in Spanish, naval rules, skirmish, other periods; well worth a click.

Beneath the Lilly Banners in my personal opinion.

Might and Reason with the free Sun King module.

I second this choice.

Polemos WSS in 6mm is a nice combination
or Black Powder

I considered the Polemos rules but looking at 6mm make my eyes hurt.:) I might wait for BLB. It does seem like alot of you like Black Powder, but I'm still under the impression that you need a large table to play the rules as written. True or am I imagining things?

With BP we use centimeters instead of inches. This makes a 6x5 foot table the equivalent of 15 foot by 12 1/2 foot (6ft = 72 inches = 180 cm. 180 move units in cms is same as 15ft in inches)

Of course there is the Carnage and Glory PC moderated set too.

link

I went with Black Powder for now. Thanks again for all the suggestions.

hmer20

If you join the Black Powder Yahoo Group, I posted some WSS rules adjustments that you might like to experiment with.

Chad

Thanks Chad Ill check it out.

Sorry for the semi-hijack, but I am currently shopping for rulesets… So I'm asking the same question with different parameters.

Figure Scale: 28mm
Game Scale: skirmish would be the strong preference, but I am open to other suggestions
Rules Difficulty: I'm a beginner, but I also think of myself a s bright guy, so complex rules would be fine, as long as all terms were well defined.
Available Expansions are always a plus, as long as the core rules are complete enough, and expansions are optional and the core game won't lack without the expansions.

Michael

Skirmish is not really an option in the WSS. You need to move foward some years, say French Indian War.

Chad

Last 4 months I've been collecting 10mm WSS anglo-Dutch & French armies & trying out Ga Pa primarily! Aiming for big battles personally, currently 6-7 battalions a side, currently dreaming of 15-25 Battalions a side within the next 8-12 months! Think I'd have to agree with Chad WSS is not the best for Skirmishing – although I can see potential. I play Flintloque & small story driven skirmishes are great fun. Perhaps a modified version of Sharpes Practice & there is a free set of skirmish rules called Blackpowder somewhere on the web – not sure of period however.

I also own BP & Polemos WSS rules – All great rules in their own right but the broadness of BP I feel is it's greatest strength and weakness.

Ga Pa – initially complex but once you get the hang of it,
fantastic large scale rules (based around reducing visibility & loss of control). Original complaints about Ga Pa seemed to revolve around translation issues – reading through the 2nd Edition I think I've only spotted one minor one though!

Polemos WSS – I like these too, much simpler than Ga Pa and give a good introduction into the period. Suits my 10mm well – but don't think they'd translate well at 28mm scale.

BP – not great for the period, although it does have some nice WSS pics. Personally I feel BP isn't suited for WSS, it's far to generic which is great for Napoleonic armies with loads of different units if you want a simplified game, but WSS armies tended to be pretty simple in the first place. WSS I feel is more about doctrines, formations and firepower – which I don't feel are the primary focus of BP.
If you wanna play Great Northern War too though then I take it all back – far more potential!

Personally, I'd avoid BP if your only doing early 18th century games. I'll stick with Ga Pa and Polemos. Also Polemos includes army lists and Ga Pa also has army lists (sold seperately but recommended)

I understand what Picton says, but we have tweaked BP for WSS, and are happy. We fell into WSS by accident (was going to be SYW), so are relatively new. Because we limit what a battalion can do it feels like the WSS we know about. We have done a fair bit of tweaking though. I currently have 10 infantry and 4 Cavalry units 10mm, though I'm adding 5 now, possibly more in the future.

Regardless of the rules I'd champion 10mm. As I posted above it works well if you have 'inch' rules, just by using cm instead – makes a small 'Inch measured' table huge.

Pendraken give great service, and are 11p a figure, this means I get a 36 man battalion for £4.00 GBP
link

Because of this you can get lots in a unit and in a units foot print – I like the mass effect, plus this command stand came to less than £4.00 GBP with the carriage and attendents, and fits on a 60mm base
link

Battle report and more photos
link

And another advantage of 10mm is they fit in a "Very Useful Box" – the 4 or 9 litre ones that have the 15 compartment trays. Even Cavalry with standard bearers.

I understand Pictons views, but we are doing WSS with BP, and have put a number of mods in. Restrict movement for infantry to straight ahead and wheeling only, and only march column and line usually used. Square is allowed, but cav can't charge the front of an unshaken not disordered unit. To us it feels like the WSS we read about.

As for figures, no matter the rules 10mm all the way. I have 36 man battalions for infantry, and they cost less than £4.00 GBP Also you get alot more into your chosen footprint. Because we are using cm not inches I have reduced bases to 40-50% (1cm is 40% of 1 inch, and a 10mm figure fits nice in the cut down from 25/28mm) – infantry I base 3 wide on 20mm, because it is easier to cut than 18mm, which is 40% of the 3 x15mm frontage in the BP rulebook. Sunjester puts 2 frontage, saves a bit of money, painting and also a bit easier to base (3 only just fits)

Also in 10mm I can get a rather spiffy command stand. Carriage, mounted general, two AdCs on foot and man holding their horses all on a 60mm base, all for about £4.00 GBP
link

Battle report with photos so you can see the two basing denisities
link

I get all my figures from the rather fine people at Pendraken.
link
They are always helpful with queries.

Another advantage of 10mm is they store in the 'Hobby Trays' for Very Useful Boxes. Each tray is 15 compartments 60mm square (so good for all sorts of basing sizes), and deep enough to accommodate a 10mm cavalry standard bearer. the 4 and 9 litre boxes hold 2 or 4 trays, and being paper size, you can get the QR sheets etc underneath

Okay, I admit I was a little harsh toward the BP ruleset and I'm sure with the modifications Hussar uses you could produce a good authentic-ish game. My own personal interest of the WSS stems back to my college days so I've read enough books since to know what I think the warfare & period should feel like from small to massive engagements.

My personal armies are based with both horse squadrons & foot regiments on 6cm x 4cm bases; foot 3 ranks deep (27 figs) & cavalry 2 ranks deep (12 figs) cramming each figure onto a 1cm frontage base to give the impression of mass and which I believe 10mm provides adequately! Despite not adhering to the GaPa or Polemos basing system ratios they work when a sensible cm groundscale is used.

As for painting – once sprayed a whole regiment can be painted in the space of 1-2 hours to a nice standard. My whole collection is Pendraken too and must say IMHO that they produce the best 10mm figs for this period!

Picton – I wasn't disagreeing with you! I can understand how some people find BP doesn't "feel right".

I'll be putting our mods on my blog soon – basically the finalised version of an earlier entry. I've made it 'pretty' and called it "…& Blenheim Palace". Sunjester and I have basically spent nine months goung from "We were going to do SYW, but these 2nd hand figures are cheap even though we know nothing about WSS" to "we think we know what it should feel like". if you email me 'at' Gmail, I'll forward you a copy for comments 'pre publishing'.

Its been a bit of a labour – tweak upon tweak – and source material is abit thin and uneven in its coverage. Despite the fact that it is the start of a new period and a new way of fighting, histories of the 18th century seem to treat it as the bit you have to get though to do SYW. There have been discussions whether my Prussian Cavalry are 'Caracole' or 'Cold steel'. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be anything like Nosworthy or Haythornthwaite, and most of what there is is very Anglo-centric.

BP is very much a 'big picture' game – as Divisional commander (the Napoleonic level the player sits at) the General is not interested how the battalions get where he orders them, just that they do, which is why BP is a bit freewheeling. Most of "&BP" is putting in restrictions to stop this, slowing movement.

All in all as long as WSS rules incorporate some or all of the following then thats good enough for me.

Command and control – or lack of it regarding reduced visibility, overall army morale, effect of smoke, etc.

Fire Doctrine – advantages/disadvantages of Platoon Fire, Rank Fire & the old cold steel approach (A prest)

Limited rate and type of movement – No exotic formations – even square is debatable. Line or column essentially and even marching in a straight line can prove problematic with the lack of any regulated march – easily disordered formations. Also fixed artillery only!

I find random events tend to liven up a game.

No other unit organisation other than battalions and brigades. Organised into wings and centre. All drawn up in long lines. No mixed corps or divisions here. Even artillery remains independent – no grand batteries.

WSS is primarily siege warfare intermixed with a few large battles and if the shakey relations of Anglo-Dutch, Franco-Bavarian and Anglo-Imperialists can be factored into a campaign game then that's a bonus! Perhaps even factoring in Ourmonde's 1712 laissez-faire attitude to the French army could give a campaign some zing!

Close combat factors too – e.g. plug vs socket bayonet vs the ageing pike!

Just a few things I look out for – not that I'm pedantic or anything;)

C2. We've taken the common BP players approach and moved Fire before movement. Not sure if I would do that in every period, but it seems right for WSS. Additionally if a unit fires then it is subject to a further -1 command (inc Bdes if any of the bns subject to the Bde order fired)

Platoon Fire. Finally decided on an extra +1 first fire die, stacking with a general +1 fist fire, so Brits and Dutch get 5 dice on first fire. IMO PF would break down after a few minutes.

French get Command +1 if charge order

Line march column and square only. Can form into 'columns of platoons' (seperate bases like skirmish) to pass through woods, but don't want to get caught like that – all sorts of minuses

Only moves for line are straight forward and wheel. Infantry crossing a linear terrain feature must stop that movement to redress lines (if they rolled 2 or 3 moves they can move those, if any left)

Once artillery unlimbered no limbering back up. 1-2 Stands per Bde. They can only make one MOVE action per turn (may unlimber if they have a second move)

Caracole Cav get a fire dice (pistols only – 6" range), but may not counter charge, only deliver closing fire. Cold Steel cavalry get the ferocious charge rule.

Cav may not charge the front of Infantry in good order (ie not shaken or disordered).

We are considering a few pike units for GNW, but I'm not keen on extra painting without actually getting extra units out of it!

I know most encounters were sieges, but all that constructing parallels and lines doesn't make a good game!

Impressive, I actually think you've slightly changed my opinion of BP, although I still think storming sieges have some great potential. Then again I quite like static warfare, grinding infantry assaults and cannon bombardments, compared with agile Cavalry.

Particularly like the forward movement limitations & the influence of platoon fire – still feel platoon fire could be sustained longer and better controlled IMO! Fair point about pike warfare – pretty much phased out in Flanders and western Europe by 1700 and aesthetically just wouldn't look right – unless perhaps if you were doing the Williamite wars of the 1690's also!

Not sure of use of caracole cavalry, think I'd stick with dismounting dragoons and shock cavalry exclusively – I won't claim to be an expert on BP, as I'm not, you clearly have a greater affinity with the rules themselves than I do, but personally I'd base each nations cavalry on differing morale throws and maybe one or two of the 'useful rules' like untested, crack, wavering – more based on training than fighting attributes. The WSS saw the tail-end of French dominance and the waning of Louis XIV's 50 odd years of military might, meanwhile the Anglo-Dutch army was heavily reformed to combat what Louis army had once been – therefore a greater emphasis on training than battle skill I feel:)

Well, all the best with your BP mods, I'll stick with GaPa for the moment – but I'll make a note of your alterations for future reference. Maybe one day I'll stick a battle report up showing GaPa in action – it seems to be severely lacking in the battle reports section:)

BTW Hussar read your battle report quite a while ago, very impressive map software too – after reading it I think I painted 4 10mm battalions the very same day!

Regards
Steve

Thanks!

Our cheif problem has been working out the way WSS warfare worked, especially the cavalry. Frankly restricting the infantry was a no-brainer, though we moved there in 2 stages. Ditto the guns. Of cavalry combat we can find little, much of it conflicting and/or Marlborough based.

What the sources did seem to agree on was Old/French system of shooting, New/Anglo-Dutch of charging (I know there are examples of French charges!). I gained the impression that what defeated the 'old' system was the fact the new system could use the weight of the charge, rather then a difference in skill up close.

We did try different factors, but that gave the 'Cold Steel' an advantage in 2nd and subsequent rounds. Going with the 'Feroicious Charge' allows a charging unit to reroll misses on the 1st round. Even if disordered by the closing fire they can expect to average 6 hits from 8 dice in the first round, as opposed to 4 from the stationary target: should be enough to win most combats where they initiate the charge, but evens if they are the target, or the French don't run away so there is a second round.

Additionally each nation has 0,1 or 2 specific rules (Prussian are 'Superbly Drilled', English Dragoons can't dismount etc) as well as definition of which kind of donkey wallopers they get. I didn't want to generic armies facing off, the only difference being the coat colour!

It would be interesting to play the same scenario with each set.

4 Bns in a day – Ruddy Nora! How many men a battalion? Any pics? (I hate painting)

27 man line battalions / 9 bases / 3 per base
12 horse / 6 bases / 2 per base
Individual artillery – limber seperate
It was a long day, but thoroughly worth it! If only I could produce a whole brigade a day though at 10mm I'd probably go blind!

No pics as of yet, rather wait till I've completed at least 4 brigades (around 16 battalions / squadrons) – showcasing the 10mm mass army look

Your interpretations are pretty much what my own understanding of WSS cavalry tactics are.
The 'traditional' French system of trotting 50 yards from their target, discharging pistols then charging full gallop brandishing cold steel, compared to Eugene & Marlboroughs tactic of delivering coldsteel at full gallop exclusively – increasing their shock value. However, I have also heard of pistols being used secondarily to fire at the defeated side whilst fleeing.

French cavalry were generally made up of aristocrats who fought at an individual level due to their perceived status, therefore lacking organisation once engaging. In contrast, the English horse tended to be more organised with status playing a slightly reduced role. However, what the french lacked in organisation they made up for in gusto, so their sweeping speed almost balanced the sides compared to the organised but marginally slower advance of heavy Anglo-Dutch Horse.

Therefore, essentially French horse tended to hit fast but broken compared to the instantaneous impact that the Allied wall of coldsteel provided. A charge-counter charge scenario would therefore mean that despite the allies getting peppered by French pistols this was unlikely to break the tighter ranks of galloping heavy allied cavalry. However, once in contact, combat was on a more level playing field but the initial allied impact would have most likely shaken the French unit thus weakening them for the rest of the melee.

Or something like that:) Personally I stick with infantry battles, banners waving and cannon slowly grinding down the advancing lines.

However, once in contact, combat was on a more level playing field but the initial allied impact would have most likely shaken the French unit thus weakening them for the rest of the melee.

Phew – think that's what we've got with the ferocious charge.

Hussar,

I would be interested in your rule additions once they are done.

I will be putting them on my blog after Tuesday (probably – We think we've got them down, so as long as we don't make any changes we think need playtesting before agreeing)

Picton

I have always understood that the cavalry advanced at a brisk trot rather than a full gallop. In this way formation was maintained and it was the solidity of the fprmation that provided theimpact against what would have been an almost stationary opponent, having just fired.

Hussar

Why are British Dragoons not allowed to dismount? They were on foot at the Schellenburg I belive.

Chad

French cavalry tactics were to charge at the gallop but in relative disorder. They might fire before breaking into the gallop but probably this was relatively rare.

There was little practical difference between these tactics and those used by the British/Dutch. Both normally failed in the face of real charges, galloping in close order, as we think of them and were swept away when all armies started using real charges later in the century.

WSS cavalry melee were all decided by traditional factors such as concentration of numbers, flank attack, better support, etc. Victory went to the side that did this best. In flanders this was usually the British/Dutch but in Spain the British/Dutch usually came off 2nd best.

Chad

Essentially what I was trying to say but explained much better, although I would still say more of a fastest trot / most controlled gallop – somewhere in the middle. IMO, as long as tabletop allied cavalry simulate a steadily advancing wall of steel and Louis' cavalry a fast sword swinging swarm – then that'll do for me:)

alincoln

I would agree that it was probably very rare to fire whilst charging but I was trying to explain theoretical doctrine rather than battlefield implementation – or indeed lack of it.

I would personally say the difference between the successes/failures of cavalry charges in Flanders and Spain were more likely influenced by theatre specific conditions such as the hot climate of Spain, quality of both horse and troops and general funding of the expeditions. Despite the Torie government belittling every achievement of Marlborough in favour of his Spanish theatre counterparts it was always more likely that Flanders would always receive the greater resourses simply to keep the Dutch & Imperial allies happy and even Louis threw most of his money and men at eastern towns and fortresses to try and strengthen his borders as he had done for the previous 50 odd years. Most of the Spanish forces were in no real condition to put up much of fight since their failed attempts to invade France as far back as the early 17th century, in comparison to the growing influence of the central European powers after the 30 years war.

But I get the feeling I'm slightly veering away from the subject:)

Chad:

French Tactics: You said that they were "an almost stationary opponent" and my point was that they were not. There was also no official French tactic at the time – it was basically up to the commander.

Basically I agree with you on this but I was trying, and failing :(, to suggest that the advantages/disadvantages of the 2 types of charges cancelled out. The French charge had better speed and the British/Dutch had better cohesion and were basically the same in effectiveness. Really effective charges have high.

Flanders/Spain: I am afraid I don't agree with much of what you say here but it is not really important and would take too long to discuss.

On the tactics/cavalry combats clearly politics influenced the resources used in the 2 theatres. But nevertheless it is still the case that with cavalry combats, and indeed battles, they went the way of the side with traditional advantages. In Spain the Spanish/French generally had more resources, manpower, etc, but on occasion the Confederates had equal or more. Victory/defeat here normally went to the side with traditional advantages like superior numbers, etc.

The Confederates in Flanders always had superior resources, manpower, etc, to their opponents and so it is difficult to see here. But if you look at the battles what generally happens is that the cavalry actions (I mean here the big picture) swung backwards and forwards until Marlboruogh arranged for (typically) a numerical advantage to settle the issue.

British Dragoons – All the sources I have read said that English practice was to stay mounted. While there may be individual times they did, I'm going with overarching rules. Schellenberg would be a scenario specific rule.

I still stand by my interpretation of the Spanish theatre, essentially skirmishes and very little inspired Generalship from 1707 onwards – no where near the investment of time and men as Flanders, but as you say alincoln too much to go into here.

I would agree with Marlborough's 'big picture' in so much as it was more to do with wrongfooting his opponent early on, such as presenting a feint resulting in his opponent shifting his strength and then Marlborough marching a large chunk of his force to the then weakened point of the enemy to be used to engage once it was too late for his opponent to reorganise.
Therefore, gaining the numerical advantage yes, but with combined arms of foot & horse.

Lets all just agree that Marlborough 'done good':)

As for dragoons – I believe the 'general' English concessus was if you can afford Horses then uses them for cavalry and not mounted infantry.

Picton – sorry for confusing you with Chad last time :(

Oh yes certain Marlborough 'done good'. Indeed all the usual rubbish about superior British/Dutch tactics ditracts from the skill of his generalship. His victories were because of his skill not some 'wonder tactics' that his troops used. The fighting in Spain also shows how good Marlborough was and that the armies were tactically similar. I think that there was little 'great' generalship in Spain although there are 'good' patches. The main problem is lack of information on Spain. But I think this is going to change a little over the following year. I think that there are 3 good books coming on Spain & more in the pipeline. One is on Spanish uniforms, another is on the Englsih/British in Spain and the final one is on the decisive 1710 campaign.

Dragoons: I missed this last time. Apart from Polish and Russains dragoons no other dragoons dismounted more than on the odd occasion. But all armies would dismount their dragoons (and indeed their 'heavy cavalry' as well) if the situation called for it.

Hi Last Hussar

What is your blog ID ? very interested in your WSS tweaks to BP

Cheers

Under the Thread 'Black Powder and Blenheim Palace' – or just google me (I was the #1 hit for "Black Powder QR Sheet", pushing Warlords official one into 4th!

Although a bit out of period Charles Esdaile's "The Peninsula War" gives very good accounts of the hardship and logistical nightmare that faced Napoleonic armies in Spain/Portugal of which I'm sure one hundred years previous would have been almost identical.

I'll definately keep an eye out for these books – would be nice to see something on how our ancestors used to party in Spain back in the day;) Fighting, drinking, wenching and yelling at foreigners… no different from a modern 18-30's holiday I guess!

Good point about the comparison with Esdaile Picton101, it surely adds to our judgment for better-informed Inherent Military Probability, to apply what we can know from another time,

All these wonder tactics, as opposed to judo, are good for WSS 101 and may or may not have held up or been used as much as we think, but…

but some UK researchers in the Pike and Shot Society for some years now have been talking about British and other armies' regiments in Flanders in the WSS with the British using 2 muskets to a pike all the way up through Ramillies, but not the next year any more.

Yes I repeat the same ratio as the New Model Army, and that this holds up until spring 1707 when it changes, for the British. Don't think I am claiming this, I am only repeating what some others have been working on for several years already.

Too bad I forgot the source for the link to this but surely I'm not the only one who saw that. I will dig for it, since it's obviously a big claim for them to make,if they are indeed prepared to make it, and there was further discussion to go along with it.

It may be the Yahoo group for Blenheim, those who did the monster-size game for the anniversary, but it may be another group instead. It would help if I could remember their names, at the least, I know. Maybe someone else can tell us before I find it.

The first-hand, written documentary evidence they are working with comes from familiar accounts such as in Chandler's memoirs book, where the memoirist talks about doing pike drill, and also ordnance orders for x amount of equipment each year for British regiments. Also they are looking carefully at paintings, tapestries, etc.

If they are right or close to right this is a big game changer, or should be. It would very much change these scientific explanations, and our understanding about the period, if they are right about this.

@Chad47 come on now you know the WSS was a French and Indian war, so were all the 18C and 17C ones, except the Dutch one at NYC, these were world wars, and Blackbeard Edward Teach skirmished all through those days, every chance he got. Not to see that takes away from the importance of the Royal Navy. Interesting discussion though. To stick to the point, of the OP, all these were good ideas. I will do the search for Last Hussar, too.

My understanding of Pike / musket development mainly lies with the French. Around the 1680's units of exclusively musketeers (armed with flintlocks & Vaughbans invention of the plug bayonet) were formed to protect the artillery. Then by the early 1690's it became clear that pikes were becoming less popular since documented cases of French soldiers downing pikes and picking up dead comrades bayonet attached muskets at the battle of Steinkirk in 1692 were recorded. 1693 saw the increase of musket ratio in most units. In 1699ish flintlocks officially replaced the outdated matchlocks & in 1703 the Swiss were the last regiments under French command to finally phase out the pike and solely rely on the bayonet.

I would assume that the other armies would have followed a very similar trend with the Allies copying the plug bayonet design quite soon after encountering it and then perhaps a year of campaigning to formulate tactics. So that within a few years of WSS commencing all sides would have been almost exclusively bayonet orientated.

Unlike the Great Northern War which was not exposed to the bayonet for many more years hence the heavier reliance of pike and shot tactics perhaps!?

Similar to a 18th century cold war I guess – i.e. encounter it, copy it, develop it, advance it then encounter something new and repeat the whole process, as is war!

Campaigning in Spain:

I am sorry I know very little about the Napoleonic Spanish campaign. But I would guess it is not that similar. The operations were a lot smaller in the WSS and both sides had supporters around. Conditions generally meant that units were probably smaller. But crucially the Confederates were generally starved of resources a lot more than Wellington's time.

But yes some interesting stuff.

British (and Dutch) pikes:

Mekelnborg this idea does indeed come from the Blenheim group along with various others – the pike and Shot group, league of augsburg forum.

The crux of the evidence for British (and Dutch) pikes up to circa 1707 is four things. There are some (dubious in my view) pictures of Blenheim showing pikes at Blenheim. There is a (more or less OK) biography which says that the British had pikes in 1702. There is 100% concrete evidence of units in Britain having pikes until after Ramilles in 1706 at least. Finally there are 100% concrete Dutch documents dated to late 1707/early 1708 which ban the use of pikes in their army. Remember the British are supposed to be copying the Dutch so this is why the similar date for the British doing the same.

There is no certain date for the British getting rid of pike, either in 1707 or any other time. There is no direct evidence of the British using pikes after 1702 in the field. But on the other hand there is no evidence (such as an order telling the specific not too or say an order to leave them in the baggage) that they either didn't use the pikes or swapped them in some way for muskets.

So basically I think that most people would say we just don't know if they had pikes in the field until 1707 (or some other date) or not. This is only really a problem if you believe the standard accounts of the war. But I think most serious researchers of the war know that most of the standard idea of 'caracoling' French cavalry, 'superior' platoon fire, etc, is just propaganda.

Finally on this there is no doubt that the British had 1 pike to 2 musket right up to the last mention in 1706. The idea of progressively falling numbers of pikes within a unit is also wrong, at least in some cases.

French pikes:

The French, all units, had pikes up to 1703 when they were ordered to replace them. Some units in garrison still had pikes in 1704 and indeed often more than normal in some cases. This was because of a shortage of muskets to replace the pikes. So 'rear' units lost their muskets and gained 'front' units pikes.

Other Pikes:

Spanish and Portuguese probably used pikes until 1707. The platoon firing Danes re-introduced pikes in 1713 when they were on the wrong end of Swedish pikes.

Bayonets/Platoon fire/GNW:

The Swedes were amongst the first units to have bayonets and retained pikes to the end of the war. The Swedes were generally the first at doing most things at this time. They (and the French) invented platoon fire for example but didn't use it because it was ineffective. English sources usually make the mistake of assuming that pikes = old fashioned – mainly because they only use English language sources & make the mistake of back dating later points. They simply often get the whole issue of pikes completely wrong or at best only consider conditions in Flanders.