The Loose Association of Wargamers

When I was introduced to WRG Ancients, at the grand old age of 14, I remember wondering how it could be that the less we knew about warfare in a given period the more complicated the rules became.
As Brendan says, we actually have little to no idea how battles were fought in the ECW (or earlier). There are plenty of weird and wonderful notions, but we have no clear picture of small unit tactics or what a battlefield actually looked like.
I say, keep it simple. Pick two or three key features that the designers think distinguish the 17thC from earlier and later periods and leave it at that.

Fecking phone.
Sorry Fred.... I'm trying to reply but I'm making a bit of a mess of it.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:06 pm Deep rank volley infantry was only common at the start of the war, and the only with French, Austrian and German units, as the war progressed more and more converted to 3 rank platoon fire.

That's certainly my understanding. It's a question of timing and numbers. It's not clear when the changes had been universally made and, the deep formations were initially used by the nations contributing the bulk of the troops.

Where did Fred go?

He's probably gone to bed, like any sensible person.
I'm still in the pub!

Thanks for the reply's guys. Great extra info, I intend to keep it as simple as I can. If the rules are to capture the spirit and character of the war it must be uncomplicated, straightforward in feel with a basic and direct movement and command system, IMO. At this point I'm only interested in the ECW
Final question at this point, what was unique or special about this war in regards to battlefield tactics ?

You need a mechanism for getting units ‘stuck’ in push-of-pike.
I’d suggest that a unit needs to win melee by 2 or more to actually ‘win’ and get a result.
Any combat that ends with a one-point difference result?
That’s not enough to break the deadlock. They’re still shoving.

Alex T wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:38 am Final question at this point, what was unique or special about this war in regards to battlefield tactics ?

Short answer: we just don't know. Which is reflected in the fact that so many serious students of the period find it very hard, if not impossible, to find a set of rules that they believe gives the "correct feel" for the period.

Most of the "certainties" that experts had us believe back in the 70s and 80s have now been exposed as either anomalies, mis-readings of contemporary texts, or outright inventions/unsupported assumptions by everyone from Victorian historians to 20th Century rule writers. Other than that, we only have a few unreliable battle maps to tell us even how they lined up at the start of a match, never mind how they played the game. In short, you cannot assess the ECW without at least examining the TYW first, and then noting which ECW commanders had fought on which side (and therefore which tactics they were most likely to have used). The increase in the ratio of shot to pike, and the near removal of the latter in some field forces, over the course of the war suggests an increasing reliance on firepower over shock. At the same time, the cavalry seems to have gone the other way, with the caracole becoming redundant (if it was ever used in the ECW) and the use of defensive firepower to break up charging enemy cavalry on their way in removed from the cavalry and assigned to the dragoons, in favour of cold steel - supplemented by the use of bucket(-topped boot) loads of pistols in melee - and improved discipline during, and more particularly after, the charge.

I think if there is a USP - certainly in the early years of the war - it was perhaps "amateurism"; compared to the rest of Europe, English troops were horrendously inexperienced. There is perhaps an analogy here with the ACW in that a handful of "professional" officers were attempting to teach seemingly complicated tactics and motions to a completely novice audience. Without a doubt things got better, and if you look at the reputation that the New Model attained on the Continent in the post-ECW period, you can see how the tradition of obstinate English/British infantry started. Unless someone else on here (and I've alerted Timmo to come and give his thoughts) has encountered more up-to-date reading/thought, that's pretty much it, I'm afraid.

So, we don't really know. I suppose it makes sense that cavalry with firearms would need to find more useful employ as the infantry got more muskets.

I suppose once the socket bayonet came in it became variations on the horse and musket theme, until then it was less clear what people did.

What Brendan said, and....

I believe 'push of pike' is one of those unfortunate instances where language used in the 17thC didn't transfer well to the 20thC. Pikes are defensive weapons, and it is, I submit, unlikely that "push" in the 17thC meant that blocks of pike would conspire to line themselves up against each other while the musketeers stood idly by.