"Ratings for Commanders and Units?" Topic

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

You make an excellent point Redinallways.

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.

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.

They were certainly defeated by Goring at 2nd Newbury.