Sunday 10 February 2013

ECW: Big Battles... (or not)


The following comment was made to me in email when talking about rules...
<<<So can we have a discussion about all the ECW/30YW rules and why none of them seem to handle battle sized games with a bit of history? Or if you think they do, which one?>>


The big Battle problem: 
I think it returns to old chestnut of ground scale versus figure representation:
Edgehill: 13,000 a side.  (at 1:20 ratio that's 650 figures per side, at 1:50 that's 260)
Marston Moor: 23,000 Scots and Parliament, Royalist numbers areprobably in the region of 20,000.
At Edgehill we're looking at say 10,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry.

Order of battle here

13 regiments of foot.
Taking Pike & Shotte then a regiment might be 8 pike and 2x12 muskets, for a total of 32 figures.
32 x13 regiments = 416 figures.  (10,000 @ 1:20 = 500, @1:25 = 400)
Cavalry are somewhat harder due to the number of independent troops as opposed to regiments, but 3,000 @1:25 =  120 figures, which is probably 10-15 units of cavalry.
The problem comes when I want to put this down on a table...
If an infantry unit takes up 32 cm, then 13 will take up 416 cm, so I'm looking for a table that is probably 15+ feet wide.
Always thus for "big battles".

The Small battle
So, on a much smaller table we're representing not a big battle but some unnamed large skirmish/interception ?
Roundway Down is more practical - say 5,000 apiece but I suspect the table width could still do with being 8-10 feet.

What do Rules cover

Forlorn Hope (3rd) has some interesting scenarios at the back, for example:
Tadcaster 1642: Royalists 145 Inf, 2 guns vs Parliament 76 inf, 8 cav and 3 guns
Corbidge 1644: Parliament 40 cav and 20 Inf vs Scots with 50 cavalry

Pike & Shotte do the Siege of Worcester and the Battle of Cropedy Bridge.  I need to sit down and work out what their orders of battle translate to in terms of figures (the layout means it won't be a quick task).  










No comments:

Post a Comment