"Dour & fantatical or maybe just misunderstood?" Topic
5 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 InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article The next Teutonic Knights unit - Crossbowmen!
Featured Workbench Article wodger  begins his series on how to paint a 15mm DBA army well, in a reasonable time frame.
Featured Profile Article The Editor takes a virtual tour of Reaper's new offices.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 ochoin  | 07 Jan 2026 11:56 p.m. PST |
I'm working on a 3d model of a burnt-out kirk for my ECW gaming. I have two ECW armies – English Royalists & Covenanters. The Scots are my favourites. One thing that interests me is how often Covenanting armies are compared to early English Royalist and Parliamentarian forces. In terms of drill, cohesion, and command experience, I'm not convinced the gap is as large as gaming portrayals suggest. Others' views? |
| KeepYourPowderDry | 08 Jan 2026 8:29 a.m. PST |
Scots were better organised, equipped and led than the English armies (pre the Army, Newly Modelled). Presbyterian councils organised and equipped forces, sort of on the same lines as the English trained bands, but without the membership eligibility. Scots forces were equipped by the presbytery rather than having to provide their own kit. Large numbers of Scots had experience from fighting on the continent as mercenaries. The Covenanters who marched south to fight alongside Parliament were probably as good, if not better, than the Parliamentarian Associations. Remember they had the largest artillery park of all armies in 1644.
(If this doesn't make sense, apologies, I'm trying to surreptitiously type this whilst attending an online meeting I really don't want to be in)
|
| Grattan54 | 08 Jan 2026 10:08 a.m. PST |
It made a lot of sense. I would agree with your thoughts. |
| ochoin | 08 Jan 2026 2:11 p.m. PST |
There are rule sets that make Covenanter Horse so poor (I'm referring to you FoG:R) the army nearly can't be gamed. I certainly don't want to skew actual historical fact & make them the equivalent of Rupert's cavaliers but they need to be of average ability in order to game with. And, IMO, they often showed this acceptable mediocrity in fact. |
| robert piepenbrink | 08 Jan 2026 4:12 p.m. PST |
I have to ask, ochoin, what troops are allowed to be of below-average ability in armies you play? Troop ratings get like Amazon stars, where everyone has to be above average. (Not that I haven't been there myself, starting with Napoleonic Swedes.) I'd say generally if the only problem is troop rating--not actual composition, equipment or organization--your best bet it to talk to your regular opponents, make your best case, and see whether they'll agree to a higher rating. Of course, if you're a solo player, agreement may be harder come by. |
|
