Help support TMP

"Ratings for Commanders and Units?" Topic

11 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 don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints Three More Pirates

It's back to pirates for Adam8472 Fezian!

Featured Profile Article

Visiting Reaper - 2000!

The Editor takes a virtual tour of Reaper's new offices.

488 hits since 17 Jul 2023
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

bjporter18 Jul 2023 6:37 p.m. PST

Has anyone put together a master list of ratings for commanders and units for ECW?

I've seen similar things for Napoleonics but nothing for ECW.

takeda33319 Jul 2023 3:02 a.m. PST

Howard Whitehouse rules "Ironsides" has some ratings for prominent leaders. I think it is a pdf.

MajorB19 Jul 2023 9:13 a.m. PST

As far as units go, I would rate Cromwell's Ironsides and Sir Arthur Haselrig's Regiment of Horse: The Lobsters as elite and probably Newcastle's regiment of Whitecoats also, but apart from that the only distinction I'd make would be poorly trained or newly raised troops as raw.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP19 Jul 2023 10:17 a.m. PST

I think Rupert's personal regiments of horse and foot would be above average but not elite.

Kropotkin30319 Jul 2023 11:46 a.m. PST

Knowing virtually nothing about ECW units and personalities I wonder if the proportion of soldiers in the ECW that fought in the Thirty Years War showed a greater amount of ability.

Might be wrong but did not Prince Rupert fight in the TYW and did it reflect on him well?

Timbo W19 Jul 2023 4:27 p.m. PST

If I remember, Forlorn Hope has ratings for many of the generals. Also various scenario books related to FH will give a selection.

For rating the units, likewise the scenario books could help.

As always these sorts of ratings are very subjective. One thing I thought I might try one day is having a go at some simple point system using the BCW Regimental Wiki. Eg – 1 for routing, 0 for participation in a lost battle, +1 for a draw, +3 for a win etc.

I think the simplest way is to classify

Raw = newly raised
Trained = seen the elephant and not routed
Veteran = campaigned for a year or had a run of victories

Redinallways21 Jul 2023 7:26 a.m. PST

I would ask why you need ratings. Not being perverse but I would apply the ratings to a paticular period or campaign.
So a "trained" unit in 1642 could be "raw" in 1644 as much of the original personnel had died or been siphoned off to garrissons and replaced by whatever the staff could conscript. SAs for generals: compare Essex at Newbury 1 to Lostwithiel.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP21 Jul 2023 10:43 a.m. PST

You make an excellent point Redinallways.

arthur181522 Jul 2023 6:12 a.m. PST

Redinallways is right. I suppose it depends on exactly what these 'ratings' represent: are they an objective assessment of a unit's – or a general's – capability to be used in algorithms to calculate outcomes, or are they a shorthand for the commanding officer's perception of his subordinates' and units' capabilities, derived from personal observation and past experience, which may prove to be mistaken on the particular occasion of the battle being fought (the wargame)? In games such as those presented by Phil Sabin in Lost Battles, they are the former. In my games, they are the latter and a die roll may result in officers or units failing to live up to my expectations, behaving as I had anticipated or exceeding my expectations.

DBS30329 Jul 2023 4:15 a.m. PST

Paddy Griffith once made the excellent point that "veterans" might be more reluctant than "trained" chaps to take risks, precisely because of their experience in recognising dodgy situations, plus a desire not to push the luck they had thus far enjoyed in previous engagements.

Also, I have never been convinced that the "Ironsides" were that good. Well disciplined, certainly. But during the period when they are most prominent, they tend to be up against disadvantaged opponents, whether in numerical or training terms. It is even possible that they were defeated – certainly held – by Rupert's horse at Marston Moor and that this has been whitewashed to avoid having to give too much credit to the Scots horse.

Lapsang01 Aug 2023 10:41 p.m. PST

They were certainly defeated by Goring at 2nd Newbury.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.