The Loose Association of Wargamers

200000 was just the recorded new planted hedges. I doubt 'Pilluc' the serf bothered telling many people when he stuck a bit of hazel in to stop the hares getting at his root vegetables!

Landscape archaeology was one of my 'things' when I was working so i can, probably, be forgiven my pedantry in this instance.

Who would have thought Paul was an expert in ancient bush....

OK Norm, you got me, I got it wrong, I said 'It is assumed that the unit would adopt the best possible formation to suit its situation and if it loses the combat then 'it got it wrong' and I should of said 'try' as in 'try to adopt the best possible formation' It doesn't matter how incompetent a unit commander may be, he would 'try' to do the correct thing. I get what you are saying but what I'm not keen on is having parts of a unit being moved by the game player to do different things, it would only detract IMO. 'Factoring in' options is always part of DBN and creating specialist units as part of the Army Orbat is always part of DBN, as you rightly explained.
In the best traditions of DBN, all this can be done with ease.

Jeremy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:10 pm Who would have thought Paul was an expert in ancient bush....

Well I had heard the rumours tbh....

I've no idea of anything DBN etc but a few things that I'll throw into the pot…

Most rules work out their cavalry doctrine based on what happened in 1642 and Edgehill specifically. The truth is that not all Royalist cavalry charged at a gallop and not all Parliamentarian cavalry used firearms before trotting into combat. Most civil war horse on both sides probably did something midway between those extremes.

Parliamentry cavalry did very well on many occasions but it's true to say the Earl of Essex was wary of the Oxford horse and tried to keep way from wide open spaces. I think this was as much because he had far fewer horse himself than the King.

There was a lot of 'making it up on the day' and adapting troops for the tactical situation and the terrain they found themselves in. Specifically I think commanders should be allowed to draw off musketeers as commanded shot at anytime, not only before a battle starts. First Newbury is an example of this happening.

As contrary as it may seem I don't think pikemen were anymore effective in most close combats than musketeers. I think this because:

• the use of the pike was declining

• the ideal ratio was two musket to one pike for combat in open ground however, some forces had far more musketeers than pike. Some evidence suggests Essex's army may have been as many at 6 muskets to one pike but I doubt this.

• I think two muskets to one pike would enable the pike to protect the muskets from cavalry if in a hedgehog formation, perhaps not if in line.

• at one stage the main Oxford army goes on campaign with no pikemen at all. Perhaps they were confident in their horse or their ability to shoot down a mounted attack but either way they regarded pikes as unnecessary

• the Royalist pikemen dropped their pikes as they pressed the attack on the New Model at Naseby. If pikes were so much better than swords and muskets used as clubs this would never have happened. I think it's possible that some musketeers were 'converted' to pikemen for the battle of Naseby.

• by 1645, perhaps sooner, the main Royalist Oxford army was not short of muskets as many would have us believe – we have hard evidential proof of this

• causing casualties was not the be and end all of causing a unit to run. Casualty lists from Naseby prove this. Some almost certainly ran before coming to blows with the enemy

• having and using reserves effectively and aggression are probably key to winning ECW actions

• terrain was very open generally, but with far, far more woodland than now. However, hedges and even dry stone walls do feature in some main actions, as noted in an earlier post. Off the top of my head hedges are noted as having an impact on the battle at Edgehill, First Newbury, Marston Moor, Cheriton, Second Newbury and Naseby. As Brendan notes they were used to keep nibblers 'out' rather than 'in'.

That makes a lot of sense, so the pike was there to stop the muskets being ridden down by cavalry. Fixed bayonets were rarely used to skewer foot, so why would pikes be?

Yes, in my view exactly that. In the rule rewrite I'm doing I'm making adjustments to allow for all of the above.

I can add another example – the battle of Lansdown as it has some interesting characteristics.

• A lot of Royalist horse run at the mere sight of Hasselrigs Lobsters, who themselves are later destroyed by the aggressive and well led Oxford Army Horse at Roundway Down

• Contrary to popular belief it was not the Cornish pike who pushed Waller's forces back at the top of Landsdown Hill – they stopped their advance at the crest and stood their ground. However, Waller's forces were actually pushed back by the withering fire of the supporting flanks of Royalist musketeers

• Waller's forces make excellent use of a dry stone wall as a defensive position late in the day. They then leave this during the night.

And also…

• Just because a unit performed well doesn't mean it always will eg Hasslerigs as noted above but also Cromwell's double regiment of Ironsides (cavalry). They had success at Marston Moor but just months later performed pretty badly at Second Newbury as they got into enclosed space. There was also an important hedge line that had a shallow ditch behind which the Royalists used to good effect to slow the Parliamentarian advance.

• Troops that had never been in a major action before could do surprisingly well. The Red and Blue regiments of the London Trained Bands (LTB) when fighting at First Newbury are the best example I can think of featuring untested troops. They were stoic under prolonged artillery bombardment. But conversely the LTB were a mixed bunch, 'Tower Hamlets' did very well at Cropredy but others were nigh on useless at Basing. So I don't think you can make wide sweeping judgements on any regiment and claim they were always good or always bad in combat.

DBN addresses historically unreliable units in a simple and brutally unmerciful fashion: the (heroic and beloved-of-Allah) Ottoman commander has to roll to see if his Janissaries behave as Regulars, Militia, or (shudder) Levee En Masse.

Remind me not to produce an ottoman army for DBN...
You know how my dice lie.

DO IT.
They’re rubbish, but you get loads of them.
Your mandatory units alone are 10 elements... which comes to all of 5 points.
Even on a basic 12 point army, that gives you loads to pick and choose from.
And if you think Cossacks are good for annoying opponents, wait til you’ve tried Djelis.
All the annoyance factor of Cossacks, but if your opponent ever manages to catch them, watch his face when he finds out they’re proper Elites.