Help support TMP

"Epic Pike and Shotte . A couple of gamey questions please" Topic

18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Top-Rated Ruleset

Regiment of Foote

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

Battle-Market: Tannenberg 1410

The Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.

Featured Profile Article

927 hits since 28 Apr 2023
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP29 Apr 2023 4:04 a.m. PST

First of all as I have mentioned before in previous chats, I am organising a Parliamentarian Army roughly based on Marston Moor 1644.

Therefore my first question is would I be better off using the New Model Army list for my late 1644 army instead of the early Parliamentarian List ?

My rationale here is that I can use my Ironsides and Oliver Cromwell comes more into his own if using his special character rules .It also means I can still used as originally planned Sir Thomas Fairfax as well .

My next question and I think I know the answer here but havnt played the game either in this form or the 28mm form.

The Overall Commanders can get a Catastrophic Blunder on a double 6 which would have a serious negative impact on the whole force as no further orders can be given by any of the other commanders that turn. That could lose me a game. Therefore would I be better using characters as Battalia Commanders instead? Battalia commanders as I under stand so far can blunder but its no where near as bad as the overall commander making a blunder . At worst just the unit he has given the order too and unable to issue any further orders for that Battalia . The rest of the commanders in the army can give orders as normal .

In view of the above would I better have a vanilla commander in overall charge ? I am looking at the Earl Of Manchester for that role as he doesnt appear amongst the special characters .

Thanks guys in advance as your input however small is always important to me .

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP29 Apr 2023 7:16 a.m. PST

Manchester was the only army commander who stayed on the field as Leven and the elder Fairfax fled when things looked bad on the Allied right. That is the problem for "special characteristics" in games.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP29 Apr 2023 5:06 p.m. PST

True but it doesnt mean they are going to flee in my battles :)

Charge The Guns30 Apr 2023 1:40 a.m. PST

Hi Mysteron, sounds like a great project!

The ‘Early' Parliament list should be fine for Marston Moor. If you really want to have an upgraded Ironsides unit then perhaps agree with your opponents to swap the Cuirassier option for the Ironsides option for your force.

Blunders only effect the troops that the command was being issued to before the dice were rolled. The key effect of the overall general blundering is that it end the command phase for the army, as you point out. The convention is therefore for the overall general to issue order last, after all other generals have completed their orders. Therefore if he blunders it will not effect the rest of the army.

Good luck and hope we can look forward to seeing your completed forces here 😀.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2023 2:58 a.m. PST

Thanks mate .I did look at the early list and consider the Cuirassier swap outs option .

The only drawback is that Cromwells attributes are nullified as they work only in the New Model Army list.

It wouldnt be too difficult to make the army convertible for both lists as the models would be very much the same .

HMM something to think about

sidley01 May 2023 12:06 p.m. PST

Well just to be a rivet counter, Marston Moor was 1644 and the NMA only came about in 1645 and their only major battle was Naseby. So if you are basing your force on Marston Moor then no NMA or as you say, it's a gamey question.

Charge The Guns02 May 2023 5:20 a.m. PST

While we're river counting, I'm not sure Naseby is the New Model's only major battle? Perhaps not even it's greatest victory? 😝

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2023 5:24 a.m. PST

Actually at Naseby some units wore their old uniforms so I have been told .

If you looked at the 2 Army lists in the rules book . There isnt much difference between them . Its mainly around Curassiers and Ironside Cavalry . I dont really want to use the former as they are antiquated for my taste. Ironsides came into their own by the time of Marston Moor and thats why I want to include them . Thats why I am erring towards the New Model Army list

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2023 5:28 a.m. PST

CTG Your right as all the conflicts after Naseby 1645? including Dunbar and Preston ( the latter very local to me) were conducted by the New Model Army .

Apart from Marston Moor , I dont think any of the battles were really big compared to those say in the 30 years war .

KeepYourPowderDry02 May 2023 7:59 a.m. PST

The truth about the Army Newly Modelled (the correct name for the 'NMA', the term New Model Army is a Victorian invention by the way) and clothing issues is very interesting.

The wargamer fact™ that units didn't have their Venetian red coats is on shaky ground to say the least. Several Eastern Association county committees were instructed to enlist men for Fairfax's Army (ie the Army Newly Modelled) and were told to equip them with red coats.

The 'Mungeam Contracts' show large numbers of red coats provided by suppliers within a two week window (we are talking quantities of 500 suits from a single supplier, and there were a number of suppliers). This clothing, shoes, bandoliers, weapons etc were all moved out of London to Reading and distributed to the regiments that transferred over to Fairfax's command.

(We also have to remember that the Mungeam Contracts are just a fraction of the contracts that still exist for the Army Newly Modelled, and that all of the contracts that still exist are just a fraction of those that did exist before the Tower of London staff sent them to be pulped.)

There is considerable evidence of soldiers deserting other field armies to join Fairfax, because the clothing and equipment was so good and readily available.

In all likelihood the Army Newly Modelled was in red coats at Naseby, but there's no definitive evidence saying that they were.

Pretty unlikely that the Army Newly Modelled had musket rests, none are mentioned in the contracts… or big floppy hats either.

It's wrong to assume that all Parliamentarian victories after April 1645 were 'NMA' victories, Parliament still had a number of other Association field armies campaigning.

The 'NMA' was a reinterpretation of the Earl of Essex's Army, which was Parliament's main field army. Northern, Eastern, South Associations still existed, as did the Cheshire army amongst others.

And before anyone starts saying "actually…", yes I know that big chunks of the Eastern Association were transferred into the 'NMA', however the Eastern Association did still exist albeit slimmed down

Big battles? We need to throw that idea out of the window too. Padraig Linehan worked out that there were only 42 sizeable battles during the whole 30YW, and the numbers involved weren't that big.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2023 12:21 p.m. PST


Some of these responses puts me off asking again .

I'll get my coat

I am just going to do things my way

Trajanus03 May 2023 7:13 a.m. PST

NMA only came about in 1645 and their only major battle was Naseby

So Langport, Preston, Dunbar, Inverkeithing and Worcester were all what? Fights in the Pub Car Park?

Trajanus03 May 2023 7:24 a.m. PST

My only question regarding the "Ironsides" and Oliver Cromwell rule, as I haven't read it – Need to steal my mates rule book.

Is how much is it restricted to Cromwell and if it is, what provisions there are for Ireton, Fleetwood, Whalley and other ANM commanders who knew there way round a Regiment of Horse?

Not to mention the Parliamentarian Cavalry at Marston Moor didn't suddenly transform when made part of the ANM, nor did Cromwell. So why not use the rule to reflect performance July 1644 anyway?

As the Command of the ANM Horse was originally given to Vermuyden, in line with the Self Denying Ordnance, you could play around with this subject till your hearts content! 😄

sidley04 May 2023 11:33 a.m. PST

My comments re Marston Moor and Naseby were in relation to the OP about recruiting a NMA list for Marston Moor.
The rest was relating to the first civil war. The subsequent NMA actions in Scotland, Ireland, Tangier and the 2nd and 3rd civil wars were not mentioned as they seemed to fall outside the OP.
That's why my own armies are based around the West between Waller and Hopton.

Trajanus06 May 2023 2:31 a.m. PST

Seems to me a matter of a differing approach.

I tend to look at the Civil War as a whole book, with a number of chapters, which ends in 1651. What Cromwell and others get up to after that (in wargames terms) doesn't interest me.

In fairness, in any gaming period, I don't base my armies around real life counter parts so much as generic representations within conflicts. Although I do try and avoid anachronisms within that.

Waller and Hopton have long been viewed as a good ECW choice so no argument from me in that regard.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 11:30 a.m. PST

Hi Trajanus

The main differences between the 2 lists is No Cuirasiers in the NMA list and 1 unit of elite cavalry plus Cromwells special rules in upgrading a unit.

Hence the reason I will be adopting the NMA army list. The 2 reenactors both former Royalist Ensigns with the Sealed Knot dont have a problem with my decision. As they will be my opposition its their agreement that counts .

The structure of both army lists are very similar in all other aspects

Trajanus07 May 2023 9:43 a.m. PST

Sounds fair to me.

Must see if I can swipe the rulebook next week. At first glance they seemed very Hail Cesare to me. I haven't seen the original "Pike and Shotte" but I understand they are a bit like that too.

I gather those familiar with the original seem to think the Epic version is good.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP13 May 2023 2:52 a.m. PST

@ Trejanus

It looks pretty good for me so far as it leaves plenty of options without constraining the army's structure too much.

I would say its more of the type of game you invite a few friends around with beers and have a fun night .Fun if you lose ,fun if you win .

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.