ochoin | 22 Jun 2015 11:41 p.m. PST |
Renaissance gaming is my new period. I entered it, clothed in ignorance & after a little wide reading & some research made the crucial decision to go the TYW-way rather than the ECW-way. My decision was based on the more exotic nature of the TYW (I am British), the wide-spread troop types & many nationalities & the personalities such as GAIII & Wallenstein. A wise decision or not, what war(s)do you prefer? |
steamingdave47 | 22 Jun 2015 11:55 p.m. PST |
I currently play ECW, but would consider TYW as well for some of the reasons you suggest. After all, a period which allows you to have troops from about 20 different states, including Turks, Poles, Danes, Swedes etc has to be attractive. I do, however think that ECW has the great advantage, particularly as I too am British, of having a lot of well documented smaller engagements, which can be played out as wargames with relatively modest numbers of figures- with two to three thousand soldiers per side games can be set up using perhaps 100 to 150 models. Many of the battlefields are still easily visited today and that adds interest. My club did a refights of Montgomery a year or so ago, a battlefield which is about an hours drive from my home and the opportunity to walk the the site certainly informed the way I approached the game. I think if I did get into TYW, I would probably go the 10 mm route so I could collect big armies fairly quickly at modest cost, as I would want lots od different armies! |
Timbo W | 23 Jun 2015 3:23 a.m. PST |
Why not have it both ways and use the TYW conventional pike and shot, artillery and harquebuses for ECW as well? |
Jcfrog | 23 Jun 2015 3:34 a.m. PST |
TYW has way more options, different armies and tactics. |
mbsparta | 23 Jun 2015 4:57 a.m. PST |
ECW gaming is for real men only. O. Cromwell |
Who asked this joker | 23 Jun 2015 5:03 a.m. PST |
You can do both as the troops would look similar. Start with ECW because you will require fewer figures on average. Some of the battles are quite small so painting up two token forces would be easy enough. Then, as your collection grows, you can try your hand at some 30YW battles. John |
Martin Rapier | 23 Jun 2015 6:06 a.m. PST |
The biggest question here isn't what colour clothes/flags do the chaps carry but do you base pike with shot or keep them as separate elements? I think that one thing is what has kept me from the period. |
DColtman | 23 Jun 2015 6:21 a.m. PST |
Agree on making armies portable between the settings. My real quandry would be what scale? I have a large collection of 28mm ECW but in hindsight wish I went with 10mm for the massed look and ease of painting. |
huevans011 | 23 Jun 2015 6:37 a.m. PST |
The biggest question here isn't what colour clothes/flags do the chaps carry but do you base pike with shot or keep them as separate elements?I think that one thing is what has kept me from the period. I base them separately. They are only representational anyway. The pike and shot moved around respective to each other all the time. We do not even know today all the permutations and drills that were used back then. As well, it was possible for shot to be detached entirely from the pike. At Nordlingen for instance, the Spanish detached their shot and fed the sub units into the fighting as reserves when they needed extra firepower. |
mad monkey 1 | 23 Jun 2015 6:42 a.m. PST |
I'll let you know once I've had a good look at the new Tercio rules. From what I've seen so far, they be mighty appealing. |
Who asked this joker | 23 Jun 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
I'll let you know once I've had a good look at the new Tercio rules. Those are chunky element based. Going that rout and trying to make your armies universal, I would go with sabot bases for all armies involved regardless of the period. You probably don't have to make them single based figure armies but maybe 2 per stand. |
Zargon | 23 Jun 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Ochoin, you can't do better than building 'redshank' Scots for the Swedes and the like :) me I'm greedy ;D going to do both sides (within means) for Rocroi in 28 mm like everyone says lots of exotic units and colour. Cheers and remember the gold coin for the mercenaries :) |
Forager | 23 Jun 2015 11:00 a.m. PST |
I got into ECW because a friend of mine had been wanting to do some Pike & Shot era wargaming for quite some time. I didn't really know much about the period and it all looked rather dull to me, but when I saw an exceptional deal for a large lot of (already assembled) Warlord 28mm ECW figures I took the plunge. Of course, I still didn't know much about the ECW, but being a smaller affair than the TYW, it allowed me to be more focused in my research (which I think was a good thing for me). Found a set of rules we liked (Victory without Quarter), have painted most of the initial batch of miniatures I got, and have played several quite enjoyable games. Overall, I think ECW was a good fit for this newcomer to the period. A more limited scope, smaller battles, armies that are virtually identical made it easier for me to get into, I think. |
Phillius | 23 Jun 2015 12:56 p.m. PST |
Well, you could do both. Sorry, indulging myself there. From the perspective of research, the ECW is certainly easier. Much more useful stuff in English. The TYW is a "foreign" war and therefore much of the documentation is in other languages. However, this is changing, and will change as time progresses. The ECW certainly has many well documented smaller engagements, especially with the number of "county" histories available from round the country. If that appeals, then ECW is a good way to go. Again though, the TYW probably has just as many smaller engagements documented, just not in English and not as accessible. Depending on how you want to game the period, small, medium, major battles, will dictate how you go about collecting. I certainly think that for the major battles of the TYW, 10mm is probably the way to go, to get that massed look. But then, if you want to indulge, you could probably get just as good a look with 28mm, just by spending more money and time. From my perspective, over an extended period of time, I am doing both. In 28mm. No doubt some forces will serve in both environments, but it is going to be a while before anything gets on the table. By the way, good to see your question did not include the ever present – "which rules should I use?". Sort out how you want to game the period first, then choose the rules. Good luck. |
Shagnasty | 23 Jun 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
I do both in 15s and the ECW in 28s. The TYW has many vivid personalities and different army types. The ECW is a little less complicated and still has some interesting personalities. Do units with two command stands, one for each war. God bless GA III and King Charles! |
Frostie | 23 Jun 2015 3:28 p.m. PST |
TYW for me, I was going 10mm, I love Pendraken minis but I already have an Imperial army in 15mmand I recently acquired £300.00 GBP worth of Peter Pig ECW bare metal for £150.00 GBP, so 15mm it is! Warlords Pike and Shotte are also a very good rule set and their new supplement Devils Playground is very good! |
Black Cavalier | 23 Jun 2015 5:32 p.m. PST |
It's not later renaissance without lace and Cavaliers. OTOH, I'm half swedish so have a strong pull to the TYW (at least the earlier more interesting sting part). |
huevans011 | 23 Jun 2015 6:07 p.m. PST |
But only ECW has "Boye ye Warre Poodle". |
3AcresAndATau | 23 Jun 2015 7:49 p.m. PST |
I prefer TYW, personally, Gustavus Adolphus is something of a role model of mine, the history of both conflicts are interesting and important to me, but the Thirty Years War strikes more of a chord, and I like that I can play a side that I have no reservations about the morality of (GA's Sweden). Although I do have a few distinctly Parliamentarian command figures I can swap in if the ECW itch strikes. Of course, I just use my own skirmish-y rules, with p&s blocks of 8 figures, and 3 man cav units, one of my two uses for 28mm. Someday, I'll do a Lutzen re-fight with awesome morale rules. Some day… |
OSchmidt | 24 Jun 2015 3:50 a.m. PST |
Thirty Years War is more fun. Can't really get a good massacre going in the English Civil War. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Jun 2015 5:25 a.m. PST |
I'm lucky enough to have had an existing "lead pile" that avoided this dilemma. For some years, I collected little batches of 2nd Generation ECW Minfigs (then – and now – the 15mm "X" range), hoping for a rule set I was happy with to turn up. After being introduced to FoG:R – much like yourself, Ochoin – I found that I had enough figures for a wide range of ECW and TYW armies (I even found a use for the unhistorical lobster-helmeted "Roundhead" pike and shot – file down the crown and surround it with a turban of greenstuf and hey presto: Oxford Army in monteros). I was also able to fill a few gaps via part of the Asgard ECW/TYW range (which was designed by the same person as the Minifigs) – eg Covenanter pikemen. I now have Early and Late Royalist, Early and Middle Parliamentarian, New Model, Covenanter, and Scots Royalist armies organised (if not all painted and based). For the TYW there are Protestant and Catholic Germans, French, Spanish, and Swedish armies. There are even some post-1660 armies, with Restoration British (Tangiers Garrison), and early Louis XIV French. In most cases, the armies are 1,500 points, but all have at least 8-900 for competitions. |
Gunfreak | 24 Jun 2015 5:26 a.m. PST |
Can't really get a good massacre going in the English Civil War. Unless you happen to be in Ireland ofcorse. ECW is my least favorite of the many civil wars the British have had. It just seems so tiny and local. Like reading about a family feud with 3 people you don't know. The stuff before and after are much better. Come to think of it, been a long time since last civil war (depending on you definition of CW) My theory is brits spend all their fighting energy on football shenanigans, so no time, money and energy to do some royal beheadings and plague spreadings to Ireland. |
smacdowall | 24 Jun 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
Do both. Most troops would have dressed the same – all you really need are a different flags. Swap the flags around and apart from a few specific units your English could become Germans, Swedes, Danes, French or Spanish. |
huevans011 | 24 Jun 2015 12:52 p.m. PST |
Do both. Most troops would have dressed the same – all you really need are a different flags. Swap the flags around and apart from a few specific units your English could become Germans, Swedes, Danes, French or Spanish. What Simon said. The only thing to bear in mind is that EARLY 30 YW had fully armoured cuirassiers and these are extinct by about 1640. Also musket rests start to disappear. |
ochoin | 24 Jun 2015 8:31 p.m. PST |
To be honest, it wouldn't worry me much to use my existing armies to fight, say, Naseby without changing flags etc. In the privacy of my own home like…. |
Daniel S | 25 Jun 2015 10:58 a.m. PST |
The only thing to bear in mind is that EARLY 30 YW had fully armoured cuirassiers and these are extinct by about 1640. Except of course the regiments that were still using these exctinct suits 5 years after 1640 . Bad jokes aside the disapperance of the full cuirassier armour is a complicated issue that can easily drive you nuts while trying to make sense of the various sources. I think I've changed my opinion on this subject more times than any other issue I've been researching. There are a number of tantalizing hints that seemt to suggest that the armour was kept in use in a number of regiments almost to the end of the war but it seems to be a question of select companies keeping it in use rather than entire regiments. (Though there is the enigmatic Bavarian cuirassier regiments which I really wish someone would try to find more documentation on. Clearly there was something special about them given their higher effectivness in battle) Montecuccoli writing in the early 1640's still seem to consider the "full cuirassier" a troop type that was both viable and in existence alongside the "demi-cuirassier" but given that some parts of Sulle Battaglie is rather theoretical it can not be considered solid evidence on it's own. Another piece of circumstancial and indirect evidence is Montecuccoli's very practical instruction for the raising of Modenese cavalry in 1643 where he argues for equipping the cuirassier as "Swedish cuirassiers" in helmet and breast&backplate only rather than the full armour. Had the full armour completly fallen out of use by then there would have been no need for Montecuccoli to argue against it nor would he have singled it out as the equipment of_Swedish_cuirassiers. Circumstancial rather than solid evidence which is why the subject is so frustrating. |
Daniel S | 25 Jun 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
Do both. Most troops would have dressed the same – all you really need are a different flags. Swap the flags around and apart from a few specific units your English could become Germans, Swedes, Danes, French or Spanish. No, the troops most certainly did_not_dress the same, using ECW English for TYW Swedes is pretty much like using Brittish figures for the war of 1812 in a AWI game. You may be able to match coat colours (or the lack of them depending on which part of the TYW you are trying to recreate) but ECW soldiers in monteros or monmouth caps would look nothing like actual Swedish soldiers in their "hungarian" style coats with steel helmets worn in battle by all soldiers, not just by the pikemen. Wargamers usually have to make do with ECW figures for the TYW as there is little else available but that sad state of affairs does not change the fact that doing so means that we loose much of the actual TYW apperance and "flavour" of the units. |
huevans011 | 25 Jun 2015 4:18 p.m. PST |
(Though there is the enigmatic Bavarian cuirassier regiments which I really wish someone would try to find more documentation on. Clearly there was something special about them given their higher effectiveness in battle) The fact that they were paid better and supplied better? That meant that the Bavarians would have the cream of the crop of the veteran trained troops. Given the skill set for a cavalryman – maneuver, riding, using various weapons – that could make a real difference, if everyone else was using farm boys with 6 months training. |
huevans011 | 25 Jun 2015 4:23 p.m. PST |
The comment about the Bavarians raises another topic – that of comparative skills sets from nation to nation. Starting at Rocroi, the French appear to clobber the Spanish every time they have a cavalry fight with them. I am wondering if the Spanish are just not that good at cavalry – lack of funds, lack of horses, fact that Flanders was usually an infantry-focussed theater of war?? |
Daniel S | 25 Jun 2015 11:57 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure you can describe the balance between the Spanish & French cavalry that way. For one thing the Spanish cavalry scores a number of victories against the French after Rocroi though these were won on the Spanish and Italian fronts of the Franco-Spanish war. Another thing is that the Spanish cavalry did do too poorly even at Rocroi, they break one French wing and halts the first charge of the other. It is only the intervention of reserves and/or the use of combined arms that secure victory from the French. But there was problems with keeping a large force of good cavalry in Flanders due to the factors you mentioned. Had been an issue already during the earlier wars but then the overall numbers of cavalry needed was smaller and the Spanish could raise additional cavalry more easily when it was needed. (Not to mention that they could draw on the large cavalry force supplied by the French Catholic Leauge in some campaigns) |
huevans011 | 26 Jun 2015 4:12 a.m. PST |
I guess my disappointment w the Spanish at Rocroi is that they were not able to finish the job after their initial success. IIRC, the French explained the failure on their left wing by the cavalry commander (de la Ferte) starting the charge too early and disordering his squadrons. On the right wing (D'Enghien and Gassion), the French were disordered by clearing out some Spanish infantry. In either case, the Spanish were able to get in a quick counter-strike. After the French are pushed back, they are allowed to reform and then drive the Spanish cavalry right off the field. Seems a poor showing by the Spanish. |
Supercilius Maximus | 26 Jun 2015 4:27 a.m. PST |
Daniel, Is it possible that extra armour was issued to those companies likely to be in the front line of a cavalry force (or conversely, those companies were put there BECAUSE they had more armour), or perhaps more armour was issued to the men in the front rank(s) as it was with pikemen? |
Codsticker | 26 Jun 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
Do units with two command stands, one for each war. That is my intention; I am still working through my ECW command stands though. |
Daniel S | 27 Jun 2015 3:04 a.m. PST |
Daniel,Is it possible that extra armour was issued to those companies likely to be in the front line of a cavalry force (or conversely, those companies were put there BECAUSE they had more armour), or perhaps more armour was issued to the men in the front rank(s) as it was with pikemen? Good questions :) Companies usually fought in line with one another so you would end up with a section of line that was stronger rather than an entire line with a stronger front rank. So far I have not seen evidence for the front rank being given better equipment than the rear ranks. Though the best equipped men would serve in the front rank their is no evidence that they had a diffrent standard of equipment than the rest of the unit. Pieter Snayers actually depicts this practice on a regular basis in his paintings. One of the arkebusier squadrons in his White Mountain painting has the front rank well equipped with both helmet and back & breastplate while the rear rank closest to the viewer lack parts of the mandatory equipment.
A cuirassier was set apart from the other cavalry by more than just his armour, pay, quality and size of horses as well as other diffrences appear in the "bestallungen" which regulated the rights and obligations of a particular unit. Which is why the examples we see of "mixed" equippment being ordered are for regiments that original was a mix of cuirassier and arquebusiers. There problem here is that we have too few detailed data points and that most of those come from a small group of regiments. And of course issuing the man with the armour was one thing, making sure it was used in combat another. Even in the early part of the war we encounter evidence of poorly discipline units throwing away their cuirassier armour on a large scale. Late war correspondence often focuses on the problem with the arm harness which was often carried in a sack on the horse or a pack horse much of the time which cause more than a few to be damaged or even lost. Artwork and other evidence suggest that more than a few cuirassiers would get rid of the arm harness and long tassets (i.e the most cumbersome parts of the armour) while keeping the breast &backplates. The backplate was usually stronger than that issued as part of arquebusier armour and included a skirt which protected the body below the waist. That the skirt was retained when other armour was discarded is an intersting indication on how usefull it was precivied to be
|
Daniel S | 27 Jun 2015 4:39 a.m. PST |
Huevans, I'd consider the performance of the Spanish cavalry at Rocroi mixed. The Alsatian cavalry of Issembourg's wing did well over all by not only defeating both lines of the opposing French wing but also by mauling several infantry battalions and capturing half the French artillery. It took Sirot's reserve brigade of horse & foot to change French fortunes and before their intervention the situation was such that the French believe the battle lost. So the French victory had more to do with having reserves in good order at hand when the Spanish had run out of fresh troops to feed into the fight. Lack of infantry support also probably played a part. That said there seems to have been a significant loss of control of the Alsatian cavalry in victory with a number of units dispersing or getting disordered while pursuing, looting and collecting prisoners. Some sources also suggest hat Issembourg left the wing to try and get the German infantry in position to face Gassion and Enghien's attack on the other flank which left the wing leaderless in the final stages. The other wing made up of Spanish & Walloon cavalry had less success with the intial counter stroke getting stoped by reserv cavalry as well as infantry battalions encountered when they pushed on. Here is much more a case of the Spanish being overmatched, partly by the quality advantage of the French but also by better tactics and the use of combined arms against a "pure" cavalry wing.
|
huevans011 | 27 Jun 2015 5:27 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Daniel. I also recollect your comments that the "Alsatian" cavalry regts on the Spanish right wing were purchased by the Spanish from the League or the Empire. From Hrcnik, I got the impression that Liga / Imperial cavalry regts were often raised and kept in being for many years and developed extensive experience and shining reputations. Spanish cavalry appeared to be recruited in individual companies and raised for a specific campaign. I was guessing that that applied to the Army of Flanders cavalry on the Spanish left wing. I wondered if that explained the different performance of the 2 Spanish cavalry wings. |
huevans011 | 27 Jun 2015 5:30 a.m. PST |
The other wing made up of Spanish & Walloon cavalry had less success with the intial counter stroke getting stoped by reserv cavalry as well as infantry battalions encountered when they pushed on. Here is much more a case of the Spanish being overmatched, partly by the quality advantage of the French but also by better tactics and the use of combined arms against a "pure" cavalry wing. I would be very interested if you have any details about differences in tactics between the French and the Spanish. |
ochoin | 27 Jun 2015 6:57 a.m. PST |
I have never seen a wargames' figure with breast & backplate & the rear skirt. ….after you write your book, how about designing a range of figures? 87) |