dave001776 | 19 Apr 2014 4:29 a.m. PST |
Having been hooked by the Perry WOR figures I have realised I could do with some help to get started. I am looking at 30-40 figure units based in three ranks, bows and bills with a few armoured types scattered in the front ranks, so far so good ? The perry sets come with some livery suggestions, I want to build two generic looking forces rather than base them on particular campaigns so I am happy to use these as a guide. My main question is how many of the figures would be wearing the livery, I read somewhere that local militia types would tag on to the units, I assume these would be in plain tunics etc ? Hope someone can get me started ! |
miniatureMOJO | 19 Apr 2014 4:38 a.m. PST |
There's a big WotR community in the medieval board at LAF Plenty of threads with advice for all :-) |
MajorB | 19 Apr 2014 5:05 a.m. PST |
My main question is how many of the figures would be wearing the livery, I read somewhere that local militia types would tag on to the units, I assume these would be in plain tunics etc ? Hope someone can get me started ! Most of the troops that actually did the fighting would be in livery. I am not aware of any sources that talk about militia "tagging on" to retinue units. In the great Lancastrian advance in 1461, there were indeed thousands of militia with the Lancastrian army, but when push came to shove at 2nd St Albans, the militia found urgent appointments elsewhere leaving the retinue men to do the actual fighting. |
GamesPoet | 19 Apr 2014 6:12 a.m. PST |
My understanding of liveries is the same as the Major's above. |
Cerdic | 19 Apr 2014 8:31 a.m. PST |
You can do fairly generic liveries and have the figures as 'multi-use'. A lot of liveries were just a couple of colours which were unrelated to the coat-of-arms and banners of their Lord. |
StCrispin | 19 Apr 2014 10:06 a.m. PST |
I'd go for the generic look. a few different units that could be used as whomever. or, you could just paint a specific livery that you think looks cool, and use it for whatever. my HYW figs are all painted for Agincourt, but have had many fun games using them for other battles. and even at conventions, no body seems to know or care. |
dave001776 | 19 Apr 2014 10:28 a.m. PST |
Thanks for all the responses so far, So as I understand, stick with livery coats per unit. Is my idea on scattering some armoured types in the front rank the way to go ? would there be complete units of foot knights ? Will save my questions on banners for later !! |
MajorB | 19 Apr 2014 10:34 a.m. PST |
Is my idea on scattering some armoured types in the front rank the way to go ? I would suggest you have a separate rank of billmen with a few MAA included or a rank of bowmen. Personally, I'd group the MAA towrds the centre of a rank of billmen, though there is no firm evidence on such detailed deployment. I also notice that you are planning to have 3 ranks. Since on average WOTR armies were 50% archers, this might cause a problem. I'd recommened you go for 2 ranks or 4 ranks rather than 3. |
Wizard Whateley | 19 Apr 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
I agree with the Major. See if you can find a copy of Andrew Boardman's 'The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses'. I mount my foot knights mixed in with retinue bills, with a higher concentration near the standard. I keep the bows on separate stands. I always play rules that allow interpenetration (like Field of Glory, for instance). The bows start out in the front rank before contact, and move to the rear through the knights and bills if the enemy tries to close. This is my view of 'how things work', but there's many different interpretations. |
MajorB | 19 Apr 2014 3:04 p.m. PST |
The bows start out in the front rank before contact, and move to the rear through the knights and bills if the enemy tries to close. This is my view of 'how things work', And mine also. |
Cerdic | 19 Apr 2014 3:41 p.m. PST |
I would also recommend basing archers separately. With regard to knights and men-at-arms and billmen etc. A 'unit', for want of a better word, would be the retinue of someone. The kit the individual soldier had probably did not determine where he stood. It would more likely be social status. So no 'units' of knights. Some knights would be a follower in someone else's retinue. Some knights would be rich/important enough to have their own retinue. A retinue could also vary considerably in size! With regards to kit. There is a popular misconception that a man in armour was a knight. A knight was a social rank, not a battlefield role. A poor knight would have cheaper kit than a wealthy, professional commoner. So for basing I would go with stands of archers, stands of bill-heavy close order infantry, and stands of leaders with a crony holding their banner. |
bruntonboy | 20 Apr 2014 1:31 p.m. PST |
As others have said really. However to be honest most of mine are in fairly generic colours with just the command stands in proper livery. Mind you they are 15mm and I use a 2 inch brush. I have lots of big flags
|
Wizard Whateley | 20 Apr 2014 2:17 p.m. PST |
Of course Cerdic's correct. Anyone could be fully armored. |
MajorB | 21 Apr 2014 5:24 a.m. PST |
Anyone could be fully armoured. If they could afford it. |
janner | 21 Apr 2014 7:44 a.m. PST |
If they could afford it. Or if their boss could afford it ;-) Of course, the size of a retinue naturally fluctuated through time based on requirement and livery could stretch from being fully kitted out through to a badge to stick on one's doublet, jack, wooly hat etc. The Perry boxed sets reflects this rather well I think. |
Cerdic | 21 Apr 2014 11:03 a.m. PST |
If they could afford it
..or if they nicked it! |