"Pikemans Lament" Topic

Hi

Just watched this video review of the game – YouTube link

In it they have what appears to be a printed version of the rules.
I have pre-ordered these, but wanted to know if anyone else who has pre-ordered has received their copy yet?

TIA

Phil

Hmmm…
That video is not a review, it's a sales pitch.

P&S is one of my favorite periods.
That system is too beer & pretzels for me.
But I can see why many like it.

Ae a player of Lion Rampant the video doesn't talk about what I'm really interested in with these new rules, how pike formations are incorporated into the system.

how pike formations are incorporated into the system.

From the snippets of the text shown in the video, it's not apparent that they are. Indeed, they seem not to be.

"Their focus on rules rather than oodles of history is perhaps one of the main selling points of this Osprey series. Rather than encouraging you to wade through reams of history, they get you to reenact it with toy soldiers."

"Oodles"? "Reams"? Why the deliberate denigration of the study of history? Is "history" now a dirty word in the historical wargaming hobby? Well, I guess you wouldn't want to pollute a good historical wargame with actual history now, would you? Calling a game like this a historical wargame is like calling "Operation" a medical game . . . it is, but only in a superficial, meaningless way. But then, that's exactly what the vast majority of the current crop of wargamers seems to want, and Osprey has a pretty good handle on the wants of their target market.

Cutting and pasting rules systems from one period to another (or, in the case of some recent offerings, from one genre to another) certainly makes new periods accessible to those who don't want to actually spend any time or effort getting to understand a new period of warfare (although it puzzles me why anyone would assume that someone interested enough in history to want to play a historical wargame would want to avoid doing just that), and it's likely a significant boost to someone's figure sales since the single biggest difference between "Pikeman's Lament" and "Lion Rampant" appears to be the figures used to play the game. It also lowers the bar to entry a bit by making new rules more accessible to newcomers to the hobby, but it does so by misrepresenting history to those same newcomers while actively discouraging them from actually learning anything about it for themselves, which is doing them a great disservice. It makes the hobby bigger, without making it any better (and I would include in my definition of "making it better" the encouraging of designers to make an effort to create games that are firmly rooted in, and strongly expressive of the history of their respective periods while still being easy to learn and play – something which I know is possible, but considerably more difficult than just substituting new terminology and figures into an existing game.)

Many historians refer to the changes occurring in the 17th century as "the military revolution", for good reason. As a designer approaching the subject, my first thought would be that, to properly express the differences between the Medieval period and the Pike and Musket period, it would be my responsibility to my readers to begin afresh and create something that would show the players what it was about the significant features of the new era that made it a revolution in military thought. It certainly would never occur to me that I should port over a system from another, utterly dissimilar era, claim to be representing "this next evolution of historical warfare", and then immediately say that "Many of the rules remain as they were – we're not trying to reinvent the wheel", thus neatly negating my previous claim.

As a designer, I would find it acutely embarrassing if someone were to play one of my games and then, their curiosity about the era piqued enough to actually pick up a book on the subject, read something that revealed the game to be at variance with the historical record, or misleading due to misrepresentations, deliberate omissions, or ignorance of the period. Apparently some designers are either indifferent to that sort of embarrassment, or they are confident that the players of their games will never know or care that they could have done their job better.

One of the snippets shows a sample 24pt company consisting of 1 pike unit, 2 shot units, 1 dragoon unit and 2 cavalry units. It seems pike are covered.
Don't let your blinkers get in the way chaps.

Cheers
Ian

"Their focus on rules rather than oodles of history is perhaps one of the main selling points of this Osprey series. Rather than encouraging you to wade through reams of history, they get you to reenact it with toy soldiers."

Take your anger out on the reviewer", not the authors- his words, not theirs.

I was strongly considering trotting out my Copplestone "Glory of the Sun" minis for this. For some silly reason, I was surprised to see them (and other North Star minis) so heavily featured. Silly me.

Jeeze you guys are depressing me.

I can't imagine pikemen bein worth a damn in groups of 6 or 12?

S'alroit. It's BBC Bathtubbing.

One thing I'll say about TMP, it is a constant source of amusement for me.

Hmm – once again I suspect I am going to be disappointed – to me skirmish gaming should be a way of refighting well…skirmishes! Those actions that occur on the perifery of great campaigns rather than just games featuring a small amount of figures – It sounds like this is an opportunity missed.

Does anyone know how or if pikemen and shot in the period participated in small scale actions? Would they go out foraging/raiding in small groups of mixed pike and shot? Would they just take swords, half pike, halberds? Or were small scale operations the role of dragoons or other light cavalry? I wonder too what the smallest formation for a "critical mass" of pike would be – a company of 50, 100? I am curious generally, not as any particular comment on the rules. I have seen some AARs from the testing period of the rules that looked interesting – particularly an all cavalry action focussed on the death of Gustavus Adolphus.

I was under the impression that there was a "campaign lite" system included in the rules.

One of the co-authors has several blog entries about PL including sample units and commands, basing suggestions and scenarios using his beautiful figures and terrain:

dalauppror.blogspot.com

Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in these rules except I'm looking forward to a game.

Calling a game like this a historical wargame is like calling "Operation" a medical game . . .

Hey, everything I know about surgery I learned from Operation.

That system is too beer & pretzels for me.
But I can see why many like it.

Yeah, I will enjoy it as I like the mechanics of Lion Rampant but I can see why it won't scratch the ECW itch for a lot of people (see War Artisan's post)

… to me skirmish gaming should be a way of refighting well…skirmishes! Those actions that occur on the perifery of great campaigns rather than just games featuring a small amount of figures…

Isn't that what these rules do? I mean, they may not specifically lay out for us point by point how to do it; but is it not up to us to take responsibility for that?

Does anyone know how or if pikemen and shot in the period participated in small scale actions? Would they go out foraging/raiding in small groups of mixed pike and shot?

Just go and watch any group of ECW re-enactors in action and you'll see EXACTLY what a skirmish would have looked like. And yes I have seen them use 12 man pike units!

Apropos the above: taking an example from History rather than re-enactment, the Royalist garrison of the fort at South Shields, when it was taken by the Scots in 1644, was made up of an infantry company of around 100 men, a third of whom were pikemen with their pikes.

War Artizan..Well put and well reasoned.

I wouldn't mind a single pike against a cavalryman. Two would be better.

Since reenactors raise their pikes vertically to avoid stabbing or hurting each other in melee, they cannot really be regarded as good evidence of fighting with pikes!

Overly critical comments here. The rules are not at all designed to re-enact history. The authors' intent was not so.
But god forbid someone actually enjoys a light-hearted game that the old guard find beneath them. There are plenty of games that attempt to handle the historical aspect, many of which are tedious(IMHO) exercises and not fun.
But if you prefer simulations, fine, go play in your own sandbox. Leave the rest of us to ours.

, Cap'n.

I' m with you Capn Flash. There are obviously folks on here who would rather spend two hours on one move, rather than play a game and have some fun. I am interested in history, but, when wargaming, I recognise that we are compromising massively. Our units are made up of a miniscule number of figures, their frontages are out of proportion to the formation depth, figure scales are massively out of kilter with the figure scale. I tend to use relatively simple rules to recreate historical scenarios; it is astonishing how often the outcomes of our games are similar to historical outcomes (and we have fun playing the game). I shall certainly take a look at these new rules.

Just leave the pike men out I suppose if it's that annoying -there's enough action with dragoons, shot and other cavalry.

Just leave the pike men out I suppose if it's that annoying -there's enough action with dragoons, shot and other cavalry.

I was thinking that might be what I do. Anybody make dismounted cavalry models?

Old Glory
link

Super, thank you.