Allen57 | 30 Jan 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
I bought a bunch of 2mm Pike and Shotte a few years ago which have lain idle in my desk. My intention was to do 30 years war with them but I rarely see this period being gamed. Why is ECW more popular? Is it because it is English and most gamers seem to be of that background or are the Battles more interesting or gameable? Why not 30years war. I find Gustavus, tercios, etc. very interesting. |
bruntonboy | 30 Jan 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
Well here in Britain at least, ECW battles were small compared to many of the continental battles- this together with local interest and more easily accessible information makes it an ideal period to play even in 25mm. To be honest even your average wargamer probably knows little about the great European conflagration but will know a bit about the struggle between king and parliament. |
Wackmole9 | 30 Jan 2016 1:16 p.m. PST |
USA Player here, So I don't have a dog in the fight. I find ECW a more interesting period then the 30 years wars. Smaller armies, Colorful characters, and the setting is more to my tastes then the European conflict in all it horror. |
Daniel S | 30 Jan 2016 1:26 p.m. PST |
*No language barrier= more information that is easily accessible. *A well developed research community that produced a host of books and pamphlets. *Small armies that are "complete" i.e usually have horse, pike & shot as well as possibly some artillery even if the army is only 4000-6000 strong. *A fair number of rules which often gives a decent to very good "flavour" for the period. The TYW on the other hand:
*Pretty powerfull language barrier, even more so since few English language historians have an interest in the period while the non-English books don't get translated. *A more limited selection of "modern" books to chose from compared to the ECW, much of the time one has to hunt for out of print books and journal articles. *Large armies or even very large armies compared to the ECW and by the later stage of the war the armies have a ton of cavalry which is both expensive and time consuming to put on the wargames table. (Edgehill 1642 had a total of some 6500 cavalry and dragoons in both armies, 2nd Breitenfeld fought that same year saw Swedes and Imperials field a combined total of 26.000 mounted troops…) Small TYW "armies" tend to be temporary detachments of horse and musket without the mix of arms or identity found in ECW armies of a similar size. (There were exceptions to this but those are usually hard to research even if you do know the languages…) *A lack of good rules with the proper historical flavour, all too often the rules are simply ECW rules with a few TYW extras such as "deep tercios" (which never existed) or "caracoling cuirassiers" bolted on. (Those guys also did not exist ) |
Green Tiger | 30 Jan 2016 1:53 p.m. PST |
|
CPBelt | 30 Jan 2016 2:43 p.m. PST |
I've always wondered what the fascination is with the ECW. What makes it give us a good game? |
Timmo uk | 30 Jan 2016 3:47 p.m. PST |
ECW is colourful to paint, good information on the clothing is available but it's not so restrictive that you can't make it up a bit. You need stacks and stacks of cavalry – the main later war Royalist army was about half cavalry, sometimes more than half. I suppose one aspect that makes it interesting is that some tend to identify with the generals of the time. Given the the UK is geographically small pretty much the whole country still has ECW history to be found and battlefields to walk and none of them are more than a day's drive away. Civil wars are probably most interesting to those living in the country where the war was fought. At an educated guess I'd say the ACW is far, far more popular in the US than the UK. So I'd suggest the same is true with the ECW – Brits like it as the action was fought in their own back yard. Broadly speaking the armies are quite evenly matched by the mid war period, artillery is next to useless but the pike/musket/cavalry relationship is interesting to play. It looks good on the table, armies are very modest – biggest battle was 50,000(ish) but lots of smaller actions and lots of little battles. |
Inkpaduta | 30 Jan 2016 5:34 p.m. PST |
In the 30yw there are so many different players and mercenaries ect. and it is fought in a variety of countries. ECW is much easy. Either you fought for the King or Parliament. Also, I think that civil wars themselves tend to be more interesting as it is nation fighting amongst itself. Look how popular the American Civil War, Spanish Civil War and the Russian Civil War are in wargaming. With that said, my heart is still with Thirty Years War. |
Shagnasty | 30 Jan 2016 8:46 p.m. PST |
I like them both. They have fantastic characters and a strong aspect of Right battling Wrong to enjoy. Strangley, here in the States the ECW is still more accessible. |
martinwilliams | 31 Jan 2016 12:16 a.m. PST |
ECW is bush league 30YW. Just a pale, small scale reflection of the main event on the continent. Favouring it is akin to prefering the war of 1812 over the camapigns of Napoleon. Martin |
Timmo uk | 31 Jan 2016 2:36 a.m. PST |
That doesn't make it any the lesser as a wargame period. |
Martin Rapier | 31 Jan 2016 2:36 a.m. PST |
I painted and based up my 2mm stuff with the precise intention of using it for both ECW and TYW. I figured in that scale as long as we can horse, shot and pike apart, no-one is going to look too closely at the uniforms! So far I've only used them for ECW though, it is just far easier to find information on the battles. |
MajorB | 31 Jan 2016 5:41 a.m. PST |
Just a pale, small scale reflection of the main event on the continent. The ECW was a purely local affair. It had absolutely nothing to do with any "main event" on the continent. |
Yesthatphil | 31 Jan 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
OTOH the impact of the ECW and the constitutional implications of it reverberate through the history of the English speaking world … so the consequences of the modest battle that took place on Naseby field probably dwarf anything that happens on the Continent Still, a little knowledge goes a long way, they say … Phil |
mashrewba | 31 Jan 2016 6:42 a.m. PST |
Spot on Phil -just who were the men who built America???? |
Guillaume deGuy | 31 Jan 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
Martin, Some of the best and most interesting baseball I have seen played was in the "Bush League" :-) I simple take your comment to mean that you prefer gaming large battles to smaller ones. The vast amount of choice we have is what makes our hobby so great. |
(Leftee) | 31 Jan 2016 12:37 p.m. PST |
I believe it has the perfect balance of combined arms, small enough to game in 25mm and still look impressive, colorful without landsknecht 'busy-ness', not huge in scope like Naloleonics and would say it has a fairly large following in the Colonies.Haven't met many people who would turn down an ECW game. Regarding TYW, 'Dutchman Spaniard Switzer Swede' was a great ruleset, it was just the daunting amount of cavalry needed to do the era justice that gave one pause. Age of Discovery the same. TYW seems to be less personal in scale whereas ECW battles at whatever scale seem more personal and engaging – not that characters weren't there in spades in the TYW! |
GamesPoet | 31 Jan 2016 6:46 p.m. PST |
I enjoy War of 1812 almost as much as Napoleonics. Oh, wait, this was about the ECW and TYW. ; ) |
Ottoathome | 01 Feb 2016 6:35 a.m. PST |
It's because people have this romantic idea about the Stuarts. It's the same thing in America with them confusing the Kennedys with Camelot. |
mashrewba | 01 Feb 2016 9:20 a.m. PST |
The Stuarts were the stuff of soap operas all the way from dribbling Jamie the sixth to Bonnie Prince Charlie. James II is my favourite for some reason. |
gregoryk | 01 Feb 2016 7:02 p.m. PST |
I love the colorful characters and find the combat fascinating. |
Winston Smith | 03 Feb 2016 6:18 p.m. PST |
Favouring it is akin to prefering the war of 1812 over the camapigns of Napoleon. Why would anyone want to game the actions of a bloodthirsty French psychopath who ultimately failed? I much prefer the War of 1812. |
English Thegn | 05 Feb 2016 10:59 a.m. PST |
Winston Smith plus One Million!! |
Supercilius Maximus | 06 Feb 2016 3:17 p.m. PST |
Funny, but Daniel S's post on 30th January (for which 10/10, btw) presented the same reasons that I've seen on other threads for doing F&IW or AWI instead of their European equivalents. |
mashrewba | 07 Feb 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
"Good evening sir -I see you're enjoying one of our popular Napoleonic games -vast columns of miniatures maneuvering on a table that is positively groaning with the weight of it. It really is quite the spectacle wouldn't you say sir? "Yes there really are an awful lot of toy soldiers aren't there". "Indeed sir. Perhaps sir if I may make so bold you would care to try something a little more, shall we say, interesting" "Is this the War of 1812 " I stammered, dry mouthed with anticipation. "Quite so sir -if you'd like to come this way…" |
Nottingham Wargames | 24 Feb 2016 4:19 a.m. PST |
ECW is one of the best periods to wargame. The battles were never that big. Figures are easy to paint – you can paint up generic forces and add a few characters to determine the side, scenery is easy to make/buy. Everything is well documented in English, Great for UK games as we are all within a few miles of an historic ECW battlefield. Also some great manufacturers – Perry, Warlord Games, Bicorne, Wargames Foundry, Redoubt Miniatures (to name a few) have beautiful ranges. What's there not to like? The whole 'War Without Enemy' nature of the period is also 'comforting'… |