The Loose Association of Wargamers

Our ECW rules, 'Victory Without Quarter', have a few holes in them.
For example, they make no mention of Highland troops which as we have Montrose's army, is a bit of a gap.
This has been fixed but there are other troop types that need addressing.

Notably, 2 of our armies have a "firelock" unit each - units without pike but armed with the slightly more efficient early flintlock muskets.
We need to tweak the stats. So far, it's been decided they should have lesser melee ability & indeed, compulsorily evade charging horse.
What else? Should ranges for their weapon be lifted? Should they get extra firing dice? Better morale?

donald

Why would they have lesser melee ability, and why should they run from cavalry?

E

I would

Unless it was Gateway Cavalry...

Essex Boy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 10:41 pm Why would they have lesser melee ability, and why should they run from cavalry?

E

No pikes? Remember the loading time of firearms in this period & bayonets hadn't been invented.

donald

In game terms I don't whether there'd be any significant difference, Donald.

The flintlock could be loaded more quickly. There was no need to remove the lit match from the serpentine as the first step, and then replace it after the rest of the loading was complete, as with a matchlock. I watched an ECW/TYW re-enactor group in Sydney fire a couple of blank volleys and one bloke, who seemed to be running the show, was very particular about talking the re-enactors through each step and looking over their shoulders as they reloaded. Much more complicated then my flintlock.

Effective ranges were similar.

The matchlock may have been more reliable. A lot of flintlock misfires are due to the flint breaking/chipping, shifting in the jaws or not sparking properly (for no discernible reason). The lit match end just has to contact the priming powder.

ochoin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:34 am

Essex Boy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 10:41 pm Why would they have lesser melee ability, and why should they run from cavalry?

E

No pikes? Remember the loading time of firearms in this period & bayonets hadn't been invented.

donald

But why would someone arm a whole unit with firearms if it was a bad thing? And if the unit is evidently happy not to have pikes, wouldn't the assumption be that they weren't overly fussed about the cavalry of the time.

Count Belisarius wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:26 pm Unless it was Gateway Cavalry...

That's really rather amusing.

goat major wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:02 pmI would

....as is that

This is my personal and probably incorrect view of the matter!

Small units of shot interspersed with cavalry, were probably protected by the cavalry as much as larger units were protected by the pike.

Small units of shot, including firelocks should not have a compulsory evade move when charged by cavalry. If they were in charge range they would be dead. In game terms I would allow for a bit of fleeing so perhaps remove the unit and place the charging cavalry unit maybe an inch behind the front line of where the shot was?

Large units of shot would probably be able to hold against cavalry if well trained. Whilst obviously disadvantaged a tight formation holding their fire until 50 yards or less could break a lot of the cavalry impetus and the shot did carry personal melee weapons too.