"ECW Gaming - What's it grown like in the past 20 years?" Topic

I've long been interested in the ECW period, even have some 25mm figures for it from the days of playing with the old WRG Renaissance rules.

Stopped playing decades ago after my opponents moved away and because I never found any rules I liked afterwards.

Part of the problem is I've got the notion that ECW was really Ancients with muskets instead of bows and a lot less tactics.

Rules I've looked at do nothing to change that and have tended to struggle around ‘issues' such as who gets killed (pike or shot) when two units fire on each other and will the pike run off and leave the shot behind or vice versa.

I've always had the impression that they all stayed or the all ran but no doubt I can be advised on that one.

Also is it too negative a view that you just form up with infantry in the middle and horse on each wing (OK Ancients do that too but there's more troop types) and charge each other. Then providing your foot are steady, you just rely on the horse winning and it's all over. Desperate simplification I know but you get the idea?

So advice please on gaming in general and are more recent rules like Pike & Shotte any different? I play Hail Caesar if that's any help or hindrance.

Have you considered using Piquet Anchor of Faith? I'm doing so with Covenanters v Montrose and I'm happy with the results.

Previously like yourself I had little interest in getting my 1980s figures out, pals were even less interested.

No problem now.

ECW rules, well depends what you prefer really. Pike and Shotte are similar to Hail Caesar, and to Black Powder naturally. They still do use the warhammer ECW thing of each shot sleeve and the pike being a separate unit, deployed next to one another. But you can happily ignore this and do it how you prefer.

I still like Forlorn Hope (though its very factor-ey so might not be everyone's cup of tea) and found 1644 was good for a larger game, but with pretty high casualties.

On scenarios and tactics etc, well its true to say you don't get so many different troop types to play with – Pike&shot, commanded musketeers, horse, dragoons, cuirassiers, clubmen, scots lancers, highlanders, ultra-light to heavy siege artillery. But the ACW has far fewer and that's always been popular. The big field battle can be relatively stereotyped as you say, eg Edgehill, Marston Moor, Naseby, but each has its unique points and sometimes you want a fairly straightforward bash. But it doesn't have to be eg- Worcester, I Newbury, and II Newbury which involved a huge outflanking move by Waller and Cromwell.

I think though that the 'small battles' have a lot to offer in the ECW, there were many more of them and all sorts of different setups are possible. Converging pike columns attacking uphill – Stratton, defence of a town – Modbury, Selby, cavalry v cavalry – Rowton Heath, cavalry v balanced army – Roundway Down, besiegers attacked by relief column – Nantwich, Montgomery, and etc etc. Though often little is known of the historical deployments so its up to the gamer to be creative.

Another possibility is the skirmish – there were thousands, but details are hard to come by in many cases. Still you can happily do all sorts of different scenarios here.

I agree with Timbo W: Go for the smaller battle-to-large-medium-skirmish game, they're much more interesting and varied.

At the moment we're using "Witchfinder General" rules. Set in the C17th, if you ignore the supernatural element, you have a very sound set of ECW skirmish rules that can handle 50-60 figures per side in a game.

FOG R are a great set of rules, while there have been debate on FOG A not heard much negative about FOG R.

They are really do ECW period well.

I still like the Gush rules but have been playing FoG-R lately.

I think the availability of excellent plastic ECW figures is increasing the number of players now. I have been putting on both big battle and skirmish ECW at conventions for 20 years. During my game at a con in January, I had many people asking about rules and talking about their growing plastic armies.

I use 1644, as it is very easy to teach in a convention setting, and combines pike and shot so you don't have silly results like pikes running off. Yes, the "typical" ECW battle is exactly as you describe. The cavalry clash on the wings while the pike and muskets bash one another in the center. I think it is up to the GM to put together a scenario that makes the thing more interesting. Introducing elements of unknown details like when and where reinforcements are coming, amounts of ammunition, as a few examples, can increase the "fog of war" and makes the outcome a lot less predictable.

I'd agree that Forlorn Hope is the best set for the ECW, it has nuances that only come out with extended play imo. I'd also agree that FoG:R makes a decent fist of it. I've never played 1644 but know it is well regarded by some fellow players.

My view is that any set that allows the pike and shot to be treated as separate formations and/or units is missing something. I played Gush for many years, and I always found it frustrating to see small cavalry units chasing off the shot wings and leaving isolated pike "blocks" sitting around twiddling their thumbs. If it had been that easy then it would have been a widely used historical tactic, and it wasn't.

As to growth, well I've seen a few club members dabble, especially with the plastics, but no-one yet has come up with enough painted stuff to run a game.

Trajanus wrote that he's been away from ECW gaming for "decades" and doesn't know current rule systems . . . so please don't use terms such as "FOG-R" (heck, I don't know what that stands for so Trajanus probably doesn't either).

When someone poses a question such as he did please don't assume that he'll identify rules without identifying them completely.

-- Jeff

A nod to Forlon Hope as you can reduce the factor-ey and have a great game – I feel it gives the best impression of an ECW battle from what I have read on ECW combat. Tried most other sets mentioend above but I found they are not as good as Forlorn Hope. I have managed to download a freebie set Victory Without Quarter the other day and waiting to get some time to play a game with them.

As with any period or genre that can be war gamed on the table top you will find a dozen different answer as to what are the best X rules/figures/etc. Everyone so far has mentioned Field of Glory Renaissance(FOG-R),1644,Forlorn Hope,Pike and Shot, which is the Hail Caesar Renaissance rules, and there are others. My preference is Warhammer English Civil War as it is a system I pretty much started the hobby with. I think the nuance for this version of Warhammer rules works very well and gives a plausible outcome. Of course, I am always looking for different rules that I can use the same figures for.

I would agree with artslave that the Warlord plastic ECW sets have made the period more appealing as you can now get into the period for considerably less money than I did with all my Renegade/Bicorne/Redoubt metals and yes I have added the Warlord figures to my collection.

As several have already stated the period has a wide range of options. And really just how many troop type variations are there for any given force during any particular time period? I tend to focus on creating or using scenarios that make for an interesting engagement and will challenge the players in a variety of ways. Also there is something about the period that loans itself to a bit of off the cuff fun. The ECW is full of very odd characters and it is easy to create some personalities that can represent archetypes.

I am going to agree with a number of others that you should focus more on the smaller engagements. One reason, and this is a personal prejudice, is that 25mm and 28mm just looks better as a smaller battle or skirmish. Of course, I have run and gamed the American Civil War in grand scale with 28 mm figures but it takes lots of space. I prefer 15mm and 10mm for the grand battles as it just looks more like the real thing.

And yes I think you are being too negative about the way many ECW battles were fought. The common convention of the time was horse on the wings and foot in the center. There were primarily two tactical ideas of thought about how to deploy these forces. One was the Dutch formation and the other was the Spanish formation. These two formations were mostly concerned with how much depth one deployed their foot but both still maintained the horse on the wings concept.

This conversation reminds of when I first pitched getting into war gaming the American Civil War to my gaming group. Statements such as," Oh they just lined up and shot at each other. That would make for a boring game." Well many years later and a sizable collection of both 15 mm and 28mm figures for the period among us is a testament to how untrue those statements were. The clash of arms regardless of period is always interesting and yes exciting. That is why we do this.

I know this has been a long post. (It appears I can never be brief.) But please allow me to share a scenario of my own design I ran as a convention game a couple of years ago. The forces were the classic Royalist vs, Parliamentarian; however, the Parliamentarian forces had occupied a town along with a significant store of gun powder. The Parliamentarians also had control of the local brothel. The story goes that one early morning after a very raucous night the Parliamentarian force wake to find the approaching Royalist forces arraying for battle and the bleary eyed Parliamentarians had to quickly man the redoubts and prepare for the coming storm. Both forces were expecting reinforcements of horse. The Royalist while sober and eager for battle where very low on powder. The Parliamentarians had powder to burn and then some but were not in the best of shape for a long scrap. That is the kind of fun you can have with this period. Plus I had tossed in a very taciturn vicar who was admonishing the Parliamentarians and was urging them with damnation if they did not march from their cowardly defenses and face the enemy head on as penance for the past night's debauchery. And the Royalist had problems of their own besides the shortage of powder. While they were all steady or veteran forces they were saddled with a god awful commander.

Panic not chaps, I know what FOG(R) is, I've been away from ECW not the Wargames Planet. In fact I play FOG(N).

I would only hope that (R) is written and proof read by those whose first language is English. (N) while not a bad set of rules was evidently written those who were more conversant with Swahili and unable to find an Editor.

I did try Warhammer ECW a while ago and found far too many dice rolls and generally it was a bit too er, Warhammer, for my taste.

Is Pike and Shotte closer to Hail Caesar than BP? I thought I was going to like BP when I first played it (for Naps) but it turned out to be the proverbial Jack of all Trades as far as I was concerned.

The Renaissance Field of Glory set is probably the best of the three FoG sets (ancients, renaissance, napoleonics).
Well written, very few unclear areas, and gives a very good game; good set of rules.
(The v1 ancients set had a few unclear bits and scope for gamey tactics, v2 ancients set appears to be up to the same standard as the Reneaissance set).
The Napoleonic set is much more complex and seems to have suffered from a rushed release as it has a lot of stuff which should have been cleared up in proof-reading.

The Napoleonic set is much more complex and seems to have suffered from a rushed release as it has a lot of stuff which should have been cleared up in proof-reading

You mean like – "A cavalry unit only may will also become Spent…."

Yes, I'd noticed.

Part of the problem is I've got the notion that ECW was really Ancients with muskets instead of bows and a lot less tactics

Trajanus,

If you were using the old Gush WRG that is exactly what you were playin: ancient with pike & shot. George Gush merely took the WRG Ancients and tweaked them for Renaissance. I have played the set several times and each time I become increasingly discontented with them.

If you like Hail Caesar then in theory Pike & Shotte might work for you. The game style is not one that appeals to me from a read through but I have yet to try them out. As for FOG R – I find these a complete turn off. There are some good concepts in FOGR such as its treatment of command and artillery. I have played them and did not feel enthused by them. The experience might have been better with an umpire who knew the rules but if you cannot pick up the rules and put on a game after a couple of readings then I feel something is not quite right.

I had no trouble picking up FOG R and putting on a game after a couple of readings.
The rules are pretty clearly written; they certainly work well for English Civil War, and I'm told they work well for earlier and later periods, too.