For wargames and wargamers
https://looseasswargamers.org.uk/
Norm, from a gaming point of view I really like what you suggest, however as EB says, what would the musketeers be doing during this 'push of pikes' ? is 'push of pikes' just something that reenactors & movie makers like ?Norman D. Landings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 am 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.
Indeed. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people have an idea that the pike and its users still ran amok on the battlefield in the Swiss/Landsknecht style. The fact that pikes not only diminished, but eventually disappeared as a proportion of the infantry within the lifetime of what was substantially the same firearm, should tell us that that isn't what happened. Even the idea of "keeping the cavalry honest" to protect the shot, seems to have flaws - not least that you would need at least as many pikes as you had shot in order to achieve the "hedgehog" effect and protect two entire sleeves of musketeers.Essex Boy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:30 am 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.
Not just limited to ECW either by any means - commanders in most periods actually had very limited ability to understand or make the difference.
Hedgerows were quite rare in England at this time - so rare in fact, that they were considered terrain features worthy of being included on maps. Their use was mainly limited to keeping free-grazing livestock out of areas where valuable crops were growing, or herb gardens and the like; occasionally, they would line sunken or raised lanes. That said, they did play prominent roles in a few battles of this period.
I think part of the problem is that we like to "game big" rather than keeping it small(er) and "learning our trade" as the real commanders had to (at least in theory!) by starting with junior commands. Whilst I think there has to be an element of trusting to the cubes of despair, as it is a game, there is something in what Purple says. The question has to be: how random do we want our outcomes to be?goat major wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:57 am Not just limited to ECW either by any means - commanders in most periods actually had very limited ability to understand or make the difference.
EB should be happy with that.Purple wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:41 am I always feel the difficulty in wargaming the ECW is that from my little reading on the subject, it appears a lot of the fighting was pure random chaos that we as overseers of the battlefield will find hard to replicate.
I remember one book stating that the musket smoke of the period was so thick that after a couple of volleys across the line, the entire battlefield was engulfed in heavy fog.
That along with the randomness of uniform, limited training? And some of the close hedgerowed battlefields, etc - led to many instances of regiments blundering into there own men and firing off volleys at each othe completely unaware they are on the same side, others drifting off entirely.
And of course certain cavalry wings are going to relentlessly pursuit or just try get some baggage.
I’ve always thought that you should barely have any control in an ECW wargame.