"Please Evaluate Three ECW Rule Systems" Topic

As I work on painting troops my opponent is looking at rule sets. At the moment he would like to have us playtest three sets . . . although it is possible that more may join the list.

If you have played any of these, please post your comments (positive or negative). They are:

"Forlorn Hope"
"Pike and Shotte"
"God King & Country" (by Canadian Wargames Group)

Certainly few will have tried all of the above but please comment on any you have tried . . . again mention both/either positive or negative aspects in your opinion.

-- Jeff

The only one I have played is Forlorn Hope and that was a couple of years ago so I am fuzzy on the specifics. I remember that I didn't care for the way Pike and shot were represented as units and the rules seemed kind of clunky. My preferred ECW rules aren't on your list, Field of Glory.

After giving Pike and Shotte 7 games, we dropped it. It does not give the feel of how pike and Shotte worked on the field of battle. Pike was considered a separate unit as was Shotte. We tried to just count them as one element, but the stats for the pike units vs Shotte units were different.

There are players who love these rules. For us, they did not work.

Matthew

I have played all three systems.

I didn't like Forlorn Hope because it had too many factors/modifiers and felt tedious to play.

Pike and Shotte were great fun but as 45thdiv said they gave no real ECW feel to the game.

That leaves the CWG rules, which I liked very much as the small units meant you could represent every regiment in an historical battle yet could still represent the different tactical formations used because of the way the units/figures were based. The rules themselves were elegant and easy to assimilate, only a few pages long yet including painless command and control rules via action cards (a brilliant commander had more chance of pulling a card allowing 3 actions than an average or buffoon (that's the term the rules used!) general.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes
Anthony

I too found Forlorn Hope clunky in play. They are not bad rules in terms of simulating ECW battles, they just didn't give me the fun play I wanted.

Warhammer ECW and 1640 both give the expected Rick Priestly game, with the former especially being heavily influenced by the character models in your army. If you like Warhammer, chances are you will like these. I found them fun, but not great simulations of ECW.

I will recomend the ECW scenario books from Caliver Books, they are written for Forlorn Hope but convert easily to other systems.

I've played Pike and Shotte and Forlorn Hope.

Forlorn Hope-- Very "old school" feeling. Lots of morale tests to take. Lots of lists of factors to consult. Pike/shot in an infantry unit are abstracted to a ratio so you don't need to have the exact number of pike figures or shot figures or worry about arranging them. Lots of army lists which are specific to various areas of the country is a nice touch. Also, I should add that the rules are a bit of a slog to understand and there are some holes/inconsistencies you'll need to fill in. Buty if you don't mind old fashioned mechanisms you'd probably like them.

Pike and Shotte: Didn't really care for the fact that pike and shotte are separate units. In the games the pike would often become separated from the shot. Also, pike are stronger than shot. If you had an all pike army you'd probably win. Since ratios were going the other direction quickly by the ECW, this didn't seem to make sense. You could fix this by tinkering with the ratings of course. Otherwise, a fun game and much easier to play than Forlorn Hope.

I didn't like Forlorn Hope or Pike & Shotte (or, for that matter 1644, which was also mentioned in the thread).

I also like FoG-R (a bit complex but works nicely) and prefer Armati (with Advanced Armati ECW/TYW rules): both these give a good period feel which I think the Warhammer derivatives don't.

Phil
ECW Battles

For god, king and country is a fine set. I have not played but it passes my #1 criteria. It has to be SIMPLE. For melee, throw a D10 and get your melee number or less to score that many casualties. Roll over and you miss.

For shooting, multiply the number of figures by a factory and divide by 10 to get number of casualties caused. Pull a card to get 1 two or three actions. You could melee 3 times with your units, shoot once, move once and melee once. Usually you will get 1 or 2 actions but 3 is less rare with better commanders.

I played in one of the test games with 45thDiv and while I did not break out in hives from the game, I was not terribly impressed either. It suffers from Warhammerism. That is, there are a lot of special abilities that have a very small effect on the game. I think the game would be considerably better if it focused on the statistics instead of all of the little special abilities. To put it another way, the structure is very good but is spoiled by too many special rules.

I also have played For God, King and Country. I liked it. Straight forward with some fog of war in the system. Unit sizes are small. I liked it but some of my buddies prefer larger units. I was using 6mm figs at the time. Now I would use my 28mm figs.

I have also played 1644 although it was when the 1st edition came out. The rules are identical so my comments would still apply. I liked the Campaign system. I think it's pretty nice. Cavalry battles were free flowing as I envision them to be. I did not like the very old school mechanics. I also was not a fan of snipers in the rules. Overall, it was ok but I'd only play if someone else ran it.

Chipco's Age of Gunpowder was also pretty good. Although I used it for the 30YW and not the ECW. I ignore their army building section. I simply calculate a stand to equal a certain strength or unit size and use OB's to build armies. The mechanics are solid. i have fought some larger 30yw battles with them and enjoyed it.

I'm trying to figure out how to use Field of Battle for this period. That's my go to set for 1700 to WWI. I know it would work. I just need to try it out.

Oh, I own Forlorn Hope, Warhammer ECW and Pike and Shotte. There were parts I liked about each of them. But overall, they just didn't grab my interest enough to dive in. YMMV.

Thanks,

John

Own, but have not played Pike and Shotte.
Same with 'Bloody Kingdom' and 1644. Mostly played WH ECW.
Looking most forward to 'Victory without Quarter' Print it off and find support at the 'League of Augsburg' (unpublished set with a good following).
I think you could have a good game with Pike and Shotte if you practice some historical discipline (don't let units wander off).
I perused the Forlorn Hope rules and kind of got a headache. At least with other rules I coulg generally figure out what figures and bases to buy.

I have been using my own rules but may give this Victory without Quarter a bash – the basing is similar. Thanks for the heads up brucka !

Forlorn Hope was written in the early 80's by people who really had a deep understanding of the ECW. It is very much of it's time. I would dispute that it is clunky, – but it is very different to most modern sets. Units are units, – you can't split pike and shot off in the middle of the game. Armies react and fight like their historical predecessors.

I liked them a lot, but you do need to learn them properly to play them.

Pike & Shotte may be fun but they have very little to do with the ECW. They are long winded with everything decided at individual figure level. If you like that sort of Black Powder/Hail Caesar thing then you'll like P&S.

You might find these interesting. Available as a pdf. Uses " bases" ( eg 4 infantry on a 40mm x 40mm base, 3 to 8 bases make up most units), mechanisms allow for different proportions of pike and shot in a unit and give different capabilities in melee/firing according to proportions of each type.

wfgamers.org.uk/WWAE.htm

There is a Yahoo group supporting these rules.

I'll agree with what Trebian said above. Forlorn Hope gives the best "feel" for the ECW but it definately has a learning curve. Like any rule set, over time you get used to their quirks.

I know your list has only three rule sets but….
There has recently been released a new rule set called "To Defy a King" which purports to be the next best thing. I believe the author was a Forlorn Hope player before he devised these new rules and that the new rules are heavily influenced by FH.

Forlorn Hope are what they are – a set of rules written when wargamers' views on what makes a 'good' set of rules were different than today. That they still hold up reasonably well to scrutiny and are still enjoyed by many some thirty years after being penned is a pleasant surprise to me, but a testimony that we got something right all those years ago.

In their defence, the seemingly mind boggling list of modifiers and rolls soon become second nature and they play fairly quickly, but even I'd admit that the combat system deserves the epithet of 'clunky'! It is interesting that they themselves were written to be quick play compared to the contemporary rules sets on offer.

My own thinking and research on the ECW has changed my views over the years and there are several things in FH that I'd have to say are wrong or in need of updating. The end result of this cogitation was the Polemos ECW set which has many of the virtues of FH but I would hope has dispensed with the vices!

Jeff, whichever way you go for your set of rules, please avoid any that treat pike and shot formations as independent bodies – ECW Foot battalia were organised as single entities and your rules of choice should reflect that.

Our club developed a set a while back and are available for free at runtus.org

We have played them quite a bit and most guys generally like them. A tweaked 2nd version will soon be posted there.

Here is the link to the thread and also the links to `TO Defy A King `
if you look towards the end of the thread there are some examples of what they consist of.

TMP link

Cheers Alan

Piquet's Anchor of Faith is a good set, and uses units of mixed pike and shot rather than separate entities.

Jeff, whichever way you go for your set of rules, please avoid any that treat pike and shot formations as independent bodies – ECW Foot battalia were organised as single entities and your rules of choice should reflect that.

Amen to that

I will echo The Tin Dictator and Baccus' comments.

My group personally use FH rules, and years back I developed "tighter" Reference Sheets for the rules, to make it far easier to read the "Check/Test" modifiers. Still, as Peter told me years ago when I had the same comment, "just roll a die, and unless a 1 or 2, you'll pick up that you don't have to check whether you passed or not".

Most importantly, I developed a 1-page/1-table system for the Combat Factors, where you don't have to check all the charts. This greatly sped up this slow aspect of the game.

All that said, my group will be giving the new To Defy A King rules a number of playtests, since as has already been stated the author use to play FH so there should be a "FH next generation" (my words!) to these new rules.

Still, I would love to see Pete revise FH, into the 21st Century. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Giglio

Forlorn Hope has a clunky damage system, it was probably state of the art at one time.God, King, and Country are simple but yield a good game that has very good command and control rules, using cards to determine how many actions a side can take — based on their overall commander.

Forlorn Hope has too many "factors" to work through. I found the book itself a great reference however and I have used the scenarios using Victory Without Quarter which is available free at PDF link