"ECW; Ain't Nothing but a Brit Thang?" Topic

Does anyone but the British enthusiastically game this period? And I would love to hear what specifically makes this period wargame-able?

To an outsider, the ECW seems like a hard period to love unless you're into reciting how Lord Puff-n-Stuff once choked on a chicken bone at the battle of Lingering Wind.

Seriously, it's hard to tell the armies apart and the units seem bland, inflexible and possessing weak fire power and artillery.

I've done ECW armies a couple of times. Not a main period, but it keeps circling back around.

The armies can be told apart if you want them to be. Easy to tell the Eastern Association Army from Newcastle's Whitecoats, for instance. Firepower is relative, and you get a nice range of cavalry types.

I would suggest that it works out best either in small scales with quick resolution games similar to DBA, putting big ECW battles on a small board and resolving them in an hour, or at the other end with 28mm armies and campaign games on the edge of being RPGs fighting over a couple of counties in skirmishes or very small battles.

But I'll be interested to hear what everyone else says.

Have the figures and interest, but have too many other figures/armies in the queue ahead of them.

Some day.

I enjoy playing it. But I don't collect it because I can't game with all my toys as it is….

I love the ECW as an American. What I don't understand is Brits who play the ACW.

I love the ECW and theThirty Years War plus all the other 1600's goodness. I even read historical fiction, one of my favorite authors for the period is Michael Arnold. And I use Pikeman's Lament great rules.

Well to each their own, but this American finds plenty to interest him in reading about, collecting armies for and gaming ECW battles and skirmishes. I have forces in 10mm, 28mm and 40mm.

I write a blog solely devoted to the ECw – 15mm gaming, and places to visit relating to the wars.
Solely a British thing? I get readers from all around the world, UK readers predominantly, but lots of US and Canadian visitors. Ukraine, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, France…

Why the appeal for gaming? There are massive holes in our knowledge of what coats and flags looked like, so you can do whatever takes your fancy. A button counter's worst nightmare.
Plus it offers big battles, skirmishes and smaller battles. No part of the UK was left untouched, so much opportunity to game. Plus lends itself really well to purely fictitious scenarios.
Troops look the same? Yes pretty much they did – which gives versatility – armies can fight for King, Parliament or in the 30YW with just a flag change.

The ECW appeals to the history buff, and yet gives enough opportunity for imaginations style games in equal measure.

I love it, in fact it is my main period. There is a number of things: the colorful personalities, the beginning of the transition to warfare being dominated by firearms, the frilly shirts, not to mention the practical beginnings of modern democracy.

I like the period and have lots of figures but a lot I think depends on the rules used. I use Peter Pig ‘Regiment of foot' an easy set of rules that make the period fun to play.

Like it a lot. Playing For King and Parliament in 28mm this Saturday

Like it but like ACW better!

I like the period and collect and play it in 28mm. I'm an American.

Odd, I feel much the same way about the ACW.

If your entire goal is to research via questions on TMP, or borrow an Osprey from a friend, then "yes", its probably not your period. As with any period, you have to identify with it to truly get the maximum enjoyment out of it. For me, that means a LOT of reading on the period (as well as the associated book purchases), supplemented by online research. I figure that at a minimum, it takes me a year of work to paint enough units for both sides for a basic sized game (12ish infantry units, 3 to 6 cavalry, 2 to 3 artillery batteries) in any period.

In short – if you're not feeling it, don't do it. However, that doesn't mean that the ECW is a period that is lacking for others. I have ECW armies, and I find the entire TYW/ECW period to be fascinating.

Do only Americans play ACW? Do only Germans and Russians play WW2 Eastern Front?

Like all games, if you find it interesting you play, if you don't you won't.

+1 Frederick. I game it in 28mm. My regiments are usually 8-9 stands of 4. Have 7/8 regiments for each side and proportional cavalry. Have mortars, Sakers, Forlorn Hope, Siege parties, Wagon train. Use variation of Regimental F& F. But the ACW is my first love. H

I expect Geoff has done his research and reached his reasoned statement?

Do only Americans play ACW? Do only Germans and Russians play WW2 Eastern Front?

Like all games, if you find it interesting you play, if you don't you won't.

No, but the ACW has a lot of flexibility and deadly firepower combined with gigantic armies and many different theaters and battles. In fact, there might be a battle for every day of the war.

The Russian front in WW2 is likewise enormous and has so many different theaters, armies, vehicles and, above all, tactics; both creative on the part of the commander and evolving as the war stretches on. I would imagine that just scenarios around a German player trying to stave off a Russian onslaught could fill 100 scenario books

Now, even after having addressed it, I dont quite see how your question follows. To be sure, the ECW is fun to read about (I just finished "All the Kings Armies" a great read)and looks nice painted up but for wargaming purposes, it seems very rote- Edgehill from start to finish.

Further, wargaming being largely a British creation, seems to be the root of the ECW being pushed by figure manufacturers, Wargames magazines and rule writers alike.

It's a bit like if Wargaming was American in origin and the wargaming industry pushed the War of 1812 to the hilt, with every magazine and rules set catering to a different aspect of the war and inundated with 20 different War of 1812 figure ranges. Now, in my opinion, the War of 1812 is a war that makes the ECW seem like all the fun in the world by comparison; especially when the Napoleonic/Peninsula theaters are close at hand.

Now, unlike the ACW, where the two armies' very sameness allows the development of a wargamer's tactical skills to win the day, it seems like with the ECW's similar, one might say inflexible, army structures forces the gamer to constantly re-play battles in a pre-set manner. Thus,creating predictable results after a few games. Almost as bad as the War of the Roses. Now, it's a lot of work for someone to buy, paint and handle large metal armies and I'm curious why they would do this for the ECW.

If that perception is wrong, and I have no desire for it to be right, please explain why but answering a question with a quasi-defensive question makes me think you own large amounts of ECW figures :)

What I don't understand is Brits who play the ACW.

That's an easy one – in part it's because back in the dark ages when figures were limited Airfix produced 20mm figures of Union Infantry, Confederate Infantry, ACW Artillery and 7th cavalry (who could pass as the cavalry of either side). Add in the Cowboy / High Chaparral set and the Native Americans and French Foreign Legion (= Zouves) and one could field quite big forces for very little outlay.

Also they are very easy to paint!

It popularised the period and it has remained popular to this day.

I expect Geoff has done his research and reached his reasoned statement?

Who is Geoff……?

DBDD

I'm in the US and I really enjoy ECW. I've even written some rules for it that I might publish some day. The look of pike and shot blocks is really appealing to me. Lots of great personalities too!

The ECW had different theatres. Montrose's army is completely different to those in England, and Ireland is another example.

"If that perception is wrong, and I have no desire for it to be right, please explain why but answering a question with a quasi-defensive question makes me think you own large amounts of ECW figures"

Why? I mean really, why? No one needs to explain to you why they enjoy playing the period, or justifying it. You've clearly laid out why you don't think it is a good period, so don't play it.

It's OK….we're OK with you not playing ECW.

@PK Guy Brent

I must say, I like your passion!

But there's a musical with a song that would have channeled all that steam a bit better. If I may quote the Immortal Eliza Doolittle:

"There'll be spring every year without you
England still will be here without you
There'll be fruit on the tree
And a shore by the sea
There'll be crumpets and tea without you

Art and music will thrive without you
Somehow Keats will survive without you
And there still will be rain on that plain down in Spain
Even that will remain without you, I can do without you"

And I expect ECW gaming will go on both in the UK and across the world without you.

Don't really get why you need to be quite so unpleasant. Like the man said, quite reasonably, if you don't like it, don't play it. I fail to understand what entitles you to pontificate on how or why anybody else plays toys soldiers; perhaps you could explain.

Perhaps we could ask Minipigs what periods we are permitted to game?

I don't think he is being particularly unpleasant but it does seem like a weird thing to start a topic on.

So the English Civil War isn't interesting as the firepower is weak, and American Civil War is far superior because the firepower is a lot stronger?

So there is no point in war-gaming Alexander the Great, Rome or the Middle Ages then, as the firepower in those periods would have been non-existent.

Well, I am coming from Germany and my main interest is the history of the first half of the 17th century. This includes of course the English Civil War. Indeed my main project currently is the build up of the royalist army at battle of Edgehill. But wargaming is not just about miniatures, rules and games. It is often a deeper interest in a period, even if the actions of said period didn't happened right before your house door. And the seventeenth century has a lot to offer. It isn't just the battles, but politics, art, religion, lifestyle and various interesting characters with interesting life's too. In fact you only could ask me why I don't do the Thirty Years War. But that's coming too. The only reason for that delay is the lack of easy available sources and I think this is one of the main reasons why others don't start gaming other conflicts too. Also you must admit, that the people of past times lived totally different life's and are totally alien to our societies. In fact I have more in common with an average contemporary Brit, than with a German of the Thirty Years War. Under this conditions patriotism is not the one deciding factor, but just one among many. And the Royalists had one very famous German amongst their generals. This is enough patriotism for me ;-) .

ECW is on my list but I have so many periods and projects going on right now. There were two locals, one had 15mm armies and the other 28mm armies, so there wasn't much need for me to collect and paint figures. They have both moved on so I guess I need to get on with it. Love the period and I dislike both sides, so I can play either one. I think the weapons are very interesting. Now if I can just figure out the ratio of pikes to matchlocks.

Black Cavalier expresses it well. There aren't many areas of class-bound British history where an obscure East Anglian squire can rise to running the country, nor where an ex-brewer can reform Parliament. There are themes here that should ring bells in a US consciousness – resisting tyranny, citizen armies, divided families – backed up with some really interesting political, social and religious experimenting.

I reenact both the English (for God and Parliament) and the American (Lincoln boy) Civil Wars. The themes of both,as aptly referred to by 12th Foot, were instrumental in those choices.

The period may very well be interesting and the uniforms and equipment may be handsome but that doesn't mean the tabletop games are any fun. What is it specifically about gaming with ECW miniatures that is enjoyable?

It just seems tabletop wargames with ECW are inflexible and routine. One has to find a field or at most a bridge.

Some of the more defensive gamers on this thread tend to confirm my concerns that ECW wargaming might be a regret and that the games might be both rigid and repetitive; pike/shot in the middle and cavalry on the flanks.

I appreciate some of the passion from the ones who are interested in the stories and the history but I'm trying to see if there is something that makes scenarios with ECW figures versatile, ever-changing and fun?

I think you are predisposed to not liking the period MiniPig. Nobody here is going to convince you that ECW games are fun since fun is subjective. If, after reading about the period and/or playing a few games you are left cold, then that is OK.

Minipigs, you're thinking only of the formal army vs army field engagements, of which there weren't that many. The more local, opportunistic battles are way more interesting. Look at Rupert's cavalry raids around Oxford; the Northern Horse's ride from Marston Moor to join the King.

I'm working up a scenario based on the Battle of Gainsborough of which the key points are:

Lord Willoughby nips into Gainsborough and fortifies it, to break to Royalist York-Newark axis. He gets beseiged by the Royalists (mostly cavalry). Cromwell and Meldrum grab some troops from Nottingham and the East and march to relieve him. They beat off the Royalists (just). After a lunch break they see a lone cavalry troop on the other side of town and go and investigate, only to run into Newcastle's whole army coming south. Cue superb fighting retreat by Cromwell to cover the withdrawal of Willoughby and Medlrum.

Now that certainly isn't inflexible and routine.

@Codsticker

Nothing could be further from the truth. I like and have always liked the period. Thus, this isnt about the merits of the period, rather it's about whether it's worth amassing metal figures, getting them painted and wargaming in ECW. The two, "The Period" and "Wargaming The Period" can be very different concepts.

Now, I understand why someone who loves the period would wargame it in spite of the period's flaws. I am sure I have my fair share of periods which I like to game just because I like to game them. However, if there is something that distinguishes me from the angry PK Guy Brents of the world, it is that I dont pretend that those flaws dont exist.

Sometimes I dont really like a period but perhaps a set of rules comes by and changes that. Or, maybe the mirror images of the armies' characteristics enhances the fun or the asymmetry of the opposing armies, ironically, accomplishes exactly the same. An Example is the ACW, where the armies are basically the same but the games are great fun. But it must be pointed out, I dont kid myself that the armies are different.

Still other periods seem too lopsided to enjoy on tabletop. An example would be the AWI. For most of my life, I wrote it off as a total bore, and further, a bore without cavalry. I found reading about the AWI conflicts one sided and the personalities both too intricate and too colloquial for my tastes. But, from associating with people on this Board, with their willingness to share their thoughts and excitements about the period, I changed my mind and now I look forward to gaming the AWI on tabletop.

I now think that rather than laughably unequal battles between the British Army and ill trained militia, the AWI offers stimulating tactical challenges. I also think the period can be taken to the Caribbean for even more exciting scenarios.

Last, some periods are great fun to read about but a complete nonstarter for wargaming (Crimean War, Bore War). Others are great fun for Wargaming but somehow no one really goes near the period; 1848 Italy/Hungary spring to mind.

I can only think that one of the reasons 1848 isn't popular, is because the British/Americans aren't involved.

It's a feeling I can sometimes share in. That's why I suspected that ECW wargaming is as much about the fact that it involves the British as it may be about being fun to game. After all, we game the Age of Arthur but few game the survival of people of 500s Venice against the encroaching Goths.

@12thFoot

Your scenario may be a lot of fun but is it just as transferable to any period? Dont get me wrong, I have no problem using the scenario of Quatre Bras with non historical armies such as 1880s British vs Dervish but I wonder what makes the ECW fun as a wargame, irrespective of all the fun battles and scenarios one might derive from it's history.

To be a bit clearer. If I got to use your Gainsborough scenario, could I just as much adapt it to use with my GNW armies?

The scenario troops are similarly armed and equipped. The differences are in their training & experience. Part of the fun with ECW, as with ACW, it that you have a mix of veterans, volunteers, pressed men and local levies in the same force.

The Gainsborough scenario ought to work for any period where troops are roughly similar. The key points in the scenario are that the Royalist besiegers' reserve so nearly thrashed Cromwell/ Meldrum and the brilliant fighting retreat that the Eastern Association cavalry conducted. So it is down to tactical skill rather than disparity.

I was in a group years ago that took ECW battles and refought them using ACW troops. The outcomes were really illuminating!

I can't see why you'd regard the Crimean or Boer Wars as nonstarters for wargaming. Plenty of figure ranges and I enjoyed 'By Jingo' by Real Time Wargames.

@N Drury

That's probably because the period is great fun to wargame but no one really wants to get stuck with those armies. Thus , if you do Napoleonics, you might use them for Crimean War scenarios and if you have British in Khaki and confederates, you might try some Bore War (Did you see what I did there again? :)) battles.

Let's please try and keep this in context of the thread and not pick one sentence out to side track the stronger issues. I mean you can do it but I wont feel accountable for it. This is not about whether the period itself is exciting, rather it's why go to the trouble of doing up the armies for that specific period? I might think the Carlist Wars are incredible fun, however, I will just use my Napoleonic British/French/Spanish. No way am I getting Carlist War figures painted up.

It's also not about the handful of people who might love a period and paint up more figures than ever actually took part in that War. I understand there are Crimean War enthusiasts (I dont deny that the uniforms are great) but they are few in number, and frankly, Ive heard through the figure manufacturers' grapevine that the Crimean War is considered something of a "Graveyard" miniatures range.

Now, the ECW is unique in that it has a lot of adherents and the uniforms are pretty but the inflexibility and/or monotonous nature of the troop types and tactics suggest a certain degree of tactical repetition that one would not find in a more balance period like Napoleonics.

I am confused:

ACW is appealing because the armies are similar, BUT ECW is not appealing because the armies are similar…

Are they really? Are members of the Iron Brigade the same as the Louisiana Tigers, or Pleasonton's boys the same as Mosby's raiders even though both are mounted? Similar distinctions exist in ECW forces-- subtler differences than those between a Mongol horse archer and a Hungarian man-at-arms, but real.

ECW armies are inflexible-- just wind them up and watch them wiggle-- YET when given an example (and one of many) that illustrates the opposite, it is dismissed because the scenario can be used in any other period: that argument cuts both ways.

At bottom, though, a decision to game a period probably isn't based on a rational choice-- rather, I think, because someone's passion for the period has evoked a sympathetic response in the gamer. I don't collect armies for this conflict, but was greatly tempted by others: Peter Young's article on Edgehill in "The Wargame", Timothy Dalton as Rupert bringing his army to King Charles at his "gaming" table, Richard Harris' last lines in Cromwell (the justification of every despot), a campaign in one of Featherstone's books-- club members each build 3 units and declare for King or Parliament on the night.

That's the sort of thing that gets me started, and if there weren't so many other projects in progress I just might begin on the ECW.

@Khanscom

Could be worse, you could be $8 USD-10K out of pocket on a period you dont know why you're wargaming. I'd say you are ahead of the game…the wargame.

You might be confused because you might think I am making an assertion that this is a black and white issue when I realize it isnt. And again, getting us out of the weeds here, even though the two armies from the two periods of ACW and ECW are identical, the tactics aren't. There are issues of terrain, scale of armies, command and control, artillery and musket firepower that make the ACW fascinating to game.

Remember, I am being forced to constantly explain myself because some posters here are trying to misunderstand my questions. If I cant ask why people like something, well then that tells me something too.

But I dont pretend the ACW is obviously wonderful to everyone. Some people may not like it. The armies are indeed basically identical; I dont try to pretend that Rush's Lancers make the period diverse. I understand that there's really no cavalry but that's what makes it different, that firepower has become more powerful, which in turn affects tactics. You have literally hundreds of different scenarios BECAUSE both the troop types and the inherent units are so uniform AND flexible. Read "flexible" as opposed to the inflexibility of ECW pike and shot and the, perhaps overly, high proportion of cavalry.

The specific ACW troops you mention are different the smaller scale the game is. But at a corps level, they're probably pretty similar.

You dont have to have a rational reason to wargame a given period but you cant expect an outsider to just love it or shut up. I find that unacceptable. I am seeing a trend that people here dont like to analyze why they do things. Thus, living in darkness, OK for the ECW gamer, getting others to accept the greatness of the period, not as OK.

Somehow, I doubt that the ACW gamers would react this way. I am starting to suspect that the ECW is popular in spite of it's mundane gaming options and that some of the practitioners dont like examining why they do it.

Like, for me, the Elizabethan period seems so much more interesting. You have proto pike and shot units just like the ECW, you also have longbows, landsknechts, Dutch, Scots, French, Spanish, Reiters, gendarmes, Irish, Boder Horse, Ambushes etc. And yet, people dont seem to game it much.

Using the models for different conflicts is definitely possible. You can play the Thirty Years War or the Deluge without problems, if you don't play with a purist who laments over Montero hats and tri-bar helmets. This way you get access to Swedes, French, Spanish, Dutch, Poles, Russians, Germans, English, Cossacks, Croatians, Danes, Scots, Irish and God knows who else. And all have their own units and formations. Cuirassiers, polish Hussars or Spanish Tercios are just some examples for that. Playing the English Civil War is a starting point, not the all end of 17th century wargaming and I guess that many others at least tried a battle from the continent.

8>/

Hmmm….
Armies with a variety of troop types, fighting in different theaters with different army compositions; availability of figures in a variety of scales; numerous commercial rules; colorful uniforms a/o dress; both full- scale encounters and numerous skirmishes and sieges for historical recreation; ability to use generic/ fictional scenarios; largest battles are relatively small- scale, so suitable for campaigning; larger than life personalities; relative ease of research…

No… doesn't sound like a period I'd like to game.

It's quite simple really.

The period is eccentric and there's lots of odd terminology and experimentation. One general could try a Swedish tactic, another a German deployment, another a mix of both. The horse have an odd combination of firepower and assault, a bit like tanks. The pikes armor, and gun rests make the period weapons unusual looking. Occasionally, there are very colorful units [yellow? Purple? White? any combination?]. Also, it is not dominated by firepower.

As for the historical events, it is a fascinating argument about what kingship means, and there's a lot of religious oddity involved as well.

Finally, since it is mostly an English affaire, there's loads of sources in English and they are readily accessible for reasonable prices.

So basically, it is the pike and shot period that's sourced in English.

Personally, it is one of my favorite periods, the main problem is finding rules I like for it!

There are plenty of rules. Pike & Shotte, 1644, Warhammer ECW, Pikeman's Lament, Fields of Glory, For King and Parliament, Tercio and DBX are just a few examples. Some are more gamy than others, but there are many more available. As many others also mentioned the is quite a lot variety for gaming the ECW. And to an Outsider nearly every western army from the dark ages on looks the same. Or do you think really think that an outsider can tell you the difference between napoleonic Prussians and their russian allies? Or between modern Brits and american Marines?

It's a little odd that there are so many different ECW rules. You wouldnt think it would be so difficult to nail down.

I dont concern myself with an outsider's ability to identify figures or uniforms. I wanted to see if there was something interesting to ECW wargaming outside of:

1. The British like it BECAUSE it's British and there are a lot of English Sources
2. The Armies look nice
3. We like to read about the period

And, because of the above, we are willing to spend a lot of time and money on the figures and never mind if the games aren't interesting to play out.

I suspect this is the case.

And, one thing about the broader world of the 17th century. Maybe this all exists, Polish winged Hussars, Ottoman Turks etc. But is this what gamers really do? Do people paint up an ECW army to game against a 17th century Polish Army?

And where did you get the idea that the games aren't interesting to play? No Wargames period would survive for very long if the Players didn't find the Wargames interesting…

@Lapsang

Except for "rampantlion" above, who only touched on the concept, no one above asserted the period is fun to play. I see some guys say they like the period, others the outfits/flags, still others got angry that I even asked what/why they enjoyed about gaming the ECW.

Some even said they just liked the ECW but no one really said the games are fun.

Contrast that with a thread on the ACW where no one got surly and plenty said the games were good fun.

I see a lot of "Whatabout" this or that other period being fun or not and some "Why do you care?" but very little excitement about the actual games.

Maybe I am being unfair? Maybe the period attracts gamers who cant articulate why they enjoy the games?

And, I think you're wrong. I think a couple of bad wargaming periods are forced into continuing existence by wargamers and some good ones are ignored.

@MiniPigs

I seriously don't think, that you are really interested in an answer about the quality of ECW-games. Several people already have written about various scenarios, army compositions and units and their different qualities. I also mentioned using the models for other contemporary wars. It only needs an flag-swap. Change your single based standard bearers and your Roundheads fight for the Swedes. Or give a damn and keep the flags. I have seen plenty of ECW-minis been used for Thirty Years War and it is not a tenth as horrible as using napoleonic miniatures for the Crimean War. So yes, you could use an ECW army for other conflicts. The English had an Intermezzo in the Thirty Years War too, by the way. But back to the beginning: The answer you say to seek probably lies in Battlereports found on Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, magazines or elsewhere. But I somehow believe, that you just search for an confirmation of your prejudices. Tell you what, you get what you seek ;-): ECW GAMING IS TOTALLY BORING! THOUSANDS OF WARGAMERS ARE WRONG AND DOZENS OF COMPANIES AND PUBLISHERS MADE WRONG BUSINESS DECISIONS AND ARE ON THE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY! Have fun. Maybe try another board. What's about WW2 for example? I heard that they are very patient people there ;-). Good Bye.