Whirlwind | 06 Jun 2015 11:07 a.m. PST |
I was vaguely wondering about the feasibility of writing some ECW quick play army-level rules on the following parameters: A base of infantry to represent 1000 men, a base of cavalry to represent 500 men, each to broadly represent a brigade. The main sub-units to be the three 'wings', each composed of 1-3 lines. Combat resolution and movement to be basically on the level of these lines. Any thoughts? Do you think this would be feasible way to create a simple (And hopefully fun) army-level DBA-type ECW game? |
Rich Bliss | 06 Jun 2015 1:46 p.m. PST |
I'm not well versed in the ECW, but your approach seems perfectly feasible to me. |
John Leahy | 06 Jun 2015 2:34 p.m. PST |
Was DBR set at this scale? |
Whirlwind | 06 Jun 2015 2:39 p.m. PST |
Was DBR set at this scale? At about half this. Big battle DBR (or 'condensed scale') had 400 foot per base or 300 cavalry. So, to my mind, a slightly different type of game than the one I am thinking about. The Royalist infantry at Edgehill would be 9 bases for me, about 23 bases in DBR. |
Who asked this joker | 06 Jun 2015 2:48 p.m. PST |
There is something called DBA-RRR around somewhere. It uses 12 base armies I believe. It was written as extensions for DBA…sort of DBA for the Pike and Shot era. Found the rules here: PDF link Army lists here: PDF link |
Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 06 Jun 2015 5:01 p.m. PST |
I do not mean to throw cold water on your idea, sir, but for me the interesting aspects of the ECW are in a much smaller scale than that which you envision. To my mind the massive blocks of troops you are writing about mostly occurred in much earlier and somewhat later periods. Now you are certainly most welcome to pursue your idea and I hope that you find much satisfaction in doing so . . . but for many of us, the massive battles you are looking at were few. I think that the ECW is far more of a tactical than a grand tactical conflict. . . . But since you disagree, please give it a go, sir. -- Jeff
|
sillypoint | 06 Jun 2015 10:28 p.m. PST |
Pike and Shotte? Warlord games, they have their QR sheet availble online- free. Not everyone's cup of tea, stress is on command and grand manoeuvres – related by DNA to Hail Ceaser and BlackPowder. Good luck. |
Fat Wally | 07 Jun 2015 12:05 a.m. PST |
|
arthur1815 | 07 Jun 2015 1:55 a.m. PST |
My feelings on this are the same as Jeff has posted above. The ECW IMHO was characterised by small, local engagements and sieges, rather than the big battles for which your rules are intended. That is part of its charm, along with the rather amateurish armies/commanders and colourful uniforms and flags. But, again like Jeff, I wish you success and enjoyment in your quest. |
Elenderil | 13 Jul 2015 2:36 p.m. PST |
On the other hand there were sufficient large actions to make army level rules worthwhile. Edgehill with its clash of tactical doctrines, both Newburys, Marston Moor, Naseby, Worcester, Preston all had in excess of 10,000 combatants. Even some of the smaller actions like Cropredy Bridge, Cheriton or Adwalton Moor were decent sized actions. |
zardoz1957 | 11 Dec 2015 10:13 p.m. PST |
I can't see playing at that scale. Seems like checkers with terrain. |
ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa | 12 Dec 2015 3:14 a.m. PST |
Might be worth tracking down a copy of Wargames Illustrated No 110 p42 E.C.W. D.B.A. IIRC bases are regimental rather than brigade-sized so a bit small scale than you propose. |
hagenthedwarf | 13 Dec 2015 4:32 a.m. PST |
Yes. Played some home-brew rules about 15 years as path of a campaign with 1,000 man infantry units and 500-man cavalry units. It all depends on what you want and what you are happy with. However, you might try starting with the suggestions above that are similar to what you are seeking and which will show the positive and negative aspects. |
colonial nic | 04 Mar 2016 3:25 a.m. PST |
|