Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

carnageandglory2 · Carnage and Glory 2

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 369
  • Category: Wargaming
  • Founded: Sep 4, 2006
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 1801 - 1830 of 4513   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#1801 From: Gerald Ford <geraldmi5@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 7:49 am
Subject: How may men?
geraldmi5
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Nigel,
 
I've been dusting off my TYW armies and starting to prepare for my first game when I became stuck....
 
How many men does an element represnt? The manual gives lots of nice examples of the formations but I don't understand how thesystem distinguishes between the different depths of formations as shown in the examples. On page 82, the manual shows a block of infantry 80mm across by 25mm deep that can represent 480 men in 6 ranks, 640 men in 8 ranks or 800 men in 10 ranks. What I don't understand is how you tell the system which it is? I mean that if in combat I say the 100% of the unit is fighting, do all of them fight? How can the system tell how many men fight per pace of frontage?
 
Another question... what happens to the neat tercio formation with its wings of shot when it gets into close combat.. do they collapse back onto the main body (as I would assume)?
 
I am really looking forward to giving these rules a try out...
 
Cheers
John Davies

#1802 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: Our First Game - Orders effects on units
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Gavin,
Performance related to orders:
Yes a unit with 'Attack' orders will receive a bonus during the charge sequence morale check, and similarly a unit with 'Defend' orders will receive a bonus duringt he fire phase defensive morale check. These bonuses effectively cancel one another out during the combat phase, as typically one is defending whilst the other is attacking.
 
Nigel
 


From: Gavin <GTovrea@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:01:52 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Our First Game - Orders effects on units

 

Other than limit a unit's likelihood of charging, do orders effect a unit's performance?

For example, do units under a "DEFEND" order gain bonuses for standing up to charges, get morale bonuses, etc?


#1803 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: Our First Game - Unit Ratings
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Gavin,
Fire and combat ratings - these ratings apply modifiers to the combat unit as it engages in fire and combat action. And these will be constant, however, the units ability and/or effectiveness will be affected by many, many other factors, and this will be reflected in the final results. These factors, include formation, weaponry, strength, fatigue, state of disorder, etc., etc. So you're basic assumptions are correct. With all things equal, a 300 man Continental Militia unit with Good fire rating, will fire at the same level of effectiveness as a 300 man British Guards unit with Good fire rating.
 
Nigel

 


From: Gavin <GTovrea@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:00:08 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Our First Game - Unit Ratings

 

A buddy of mine and I just finished our first game (AWI) and we came up with a number of questions. Fortunately, a careful re-reading of the game documentation allowed us to either find the answers, or make up something that sounded like an answer for future games (supports, orders, pursuit, etc.).

For what remains I will try to start a new "thread" for each separate subject.

Regarding Combat and Fire ratings, are they pretty much the same across units with varying quality and experience, or are they modified by these unit ratings? In effect, I am asking if a Continental Militia unit with "Good" fire rating will fire just as well as a British Guard unit with a "Good" fire rating. (I realize that the Guard unit will probably stay in the fight longer, be more likely to stand up to a charge, etc.)

Thanks,
Gavin


#1804 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: Our First Game - End of Game
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Gavin,
Army Morale:
No, the system will not declare the game as over. However, as army morale begans to decline, you will discover that your control over your units begins to collapse. More and more units in an army with failing army morale will tend to receive compulsory reactions, such as 'no advance', 'halt', 'retire' and 'rout'. Any unit that has less than 'fresh' fatigue' [95% or higher], will incur a morale loss in these circumstances, and typically a downward spiral of effectiveness will result.
If the two armies are fairly close in army morale, you can see swings in fortune as first one then the other will gain or lose army morale, and in these circumstances it's probably fine to continue the game until a clear break in morale occurs. Typically the army morale break point is 75%, and when a clear split of 2 points or more exists between the two armies. Therefore, if one side has lets say 74% and the other 84%, it will be very difficult for the army with 74% to recover, therefore, it is acceptable to 'call' the game as over. If you have all the time in the world, then it's fine to continue through the end game, until the defeated side has successfully disengaged, and this is obviously relevant in a campaign context - but if it's a one off game, it's fine to accept that the one side has lost and declare the game 'finished'.
 
Nigel

 


From: Gavin <GTovrea@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:03:43 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Our First Game - End of Game

 

Is there a point at which the software will declare the game over? (Just stop, your army has broken already!)


#1805 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: Our First Game - Interface Suggestion
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Gavin,
The problem with that idea is that it doesn't suit every situation - there is always going to be the instance when a player wants to fire with 16%, or 22%, or someother number and will be dissatisfied if that button is not available. Also it should be remember that if secondary fire is available it is only available from the percentage that hasn't fired, so the permutations are vast. I honestly think it's easier to type in two numbers, 1 through 99, than select from a choice of buttons. Also if the unit is firing 100%, that is a default and no input is actually required - same goes for the range.
 
Hope these answers have helped.
 
All the best
Nigel

 


From: Gavin <GTovrea@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:07:26 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Our First Game - Interface Suggestion

 

Instead of requiring a key punch input for percentage of unit to engage (fire or combat), why not use "Radio" buttons (like those where you select the type of cover, i.e. they allow only one selection from a list)?

For example, with a mouse click you could select 100%, 75%, 67%, 50%, 33%, 25%, or "other" (which would thereafter require a numeric entry).

Just thinking of ways to speed up the game.

Gavin


#1806 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: Armour classification for ECW
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Paul,
The armor categories are as follows:

Horse:
Full - Cuirassiers e.g. Haslerigg's lobsters
Half - Harquebusiers with buff coat, back and breast plate and pot helmet.
Leather - Horse just with buff coats
 
Foot: [Basically only the pikemen armor is considered]
Half - a unit with musketeers without any armour but with pikemen in armour including helmet
Leather - as above but pikemen with buff coats and possibly helmets
Leather - both musketeers and pikemen in buff coats (a book I have says the London trained bands were like this although the buff coats were sleeveless).
 
Thank you for asking this - I failed to include it as a written description in the system manual
 
All the best
Nigel

 


From: paul689570 <paulsmith116@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 5:27:19 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Armour classification for ECW

 

Hi Nigel

I'm just putting some ECW army list together and would be grateful for some guidance on the what armour classification to give the following units:

Horse:
Cuirassiers e.g. Haslerigg's lobsters
Harquebusiers with buff coat, back and breast plate and pot helmet.
Horse just with buff coats

Foot:
a unit with musketeers without any armour but with pikemen in armour including helmet
as above but pikemen with buff coats and possibly helmets
both musketeers and pikemen in buff coats (a book I have says the London trained bands were like this although the buff coats were sleeveless).

Cheers Paul


#1807 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: How may men?
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
John,
The system will identify the depth of the formation by reference to the nationality - for example, when considering foot it will assume that the Swedes are fighting in six ranks, the Dutch and their allies in eight, and the early Imperialists in a formation sixteen to twenty ranks deep - the musketeer wings will typically be eight of ten ranks deep for example. The system then identifies the strength, nationality, and an assumed file width for shot and pike, to determine what the relative frontage will be. The system will then compare these frontages to determine which unit is on a smaller frontage, and that will be considered the engaged frontage. The larger unit will then add a few files to the combat. Depth is typically considered as three ranks fully engaged, and then additional ranks will be engaged on a percentage basis,with anything over eight ranks being effectively out of the fight. Therefore it's okay to input 100% engaged, because the system will do the calculations after that.
 
What happens to the Tercio shot wings? Good question - my understanding is that they fall back in line with the pike block, and then start clubing with the butt end of their firearms.
 
Hope this helps
Nigel

 


From: Gerald Ford <geraldmi5@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 3:49:51 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] How may men?

 

Hi Nigel,
 
I've been dusting off my TYW armies and starting to prepare for my first game when I became stuck....
 
How many men does an element represnt? The manual gives lots of nice examples of the formations but I don't understand how thesystem distinguishes between the different depths of formations as shown in the examples. On page 82, the manual shows a block of infantry 80mm across by 25mm deep that can represent 480 men in 6 ranks, 640 men in 8 ranks or 800 men in 10 ranks. What I don't understand is how you tell the system which it is? I mean that if in combat I say the 100% of the unit is fighting, do all of them fight? How can the system tell how many men fight per pace of frontage?
 
Another question... what happens to the neat tercio formation with its wings of shot when it gets into close combat.. do they collapse back onto the main body (as I would assume)?
 
I am really looking forward to giving these rules a try out...
 
Cheers
John Davies


#1808 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed and Paul,
Hmmmmmm - I'm going to check my references about cadenced marching - that's the first time that I heard it was instituted to actually speed up movement.
And I take your point about armor and carriage of pikes [and for that matter the heavy arquebus and matchlocks] - in the meantime, you can always institute your own reduced movement, and ignore the declared charge distance [except for the bonus]. In this case, if you assume 300 paces as the typical movement of a line of pike and shot, add 75 paces for the charge, and then whatever bonus you get. If you prefer, you could add movement from this base figure, assuming this is for a half-armored unit, a unit with leather/buff coats, might move at 375 paces, and a unit with no armor at 450 paces.
 
Therefore:
Half armored foot unit has a normal movement of 300 paces, with 375 pace normal charge distance.
Leather foot unit has a normal movement of 375 paces, with 450 pace normal charge distance, and
Unarmored foot unit has a normal movement of 450 paces, with 525 pace normal charge distance.
 
The retirement and rout distances will always be the same, no matter what the forward movement is, so you don't need to worry about that.
 
Hope this helps
Nigel

 


From: paul689570 <paulsmith116@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 5:16:46 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 



Hi Nigel

Hope you don't mind me chiming in on this one.
I must admit I was a bit taken aback when I saw that infantry units comprising musketeers and pikes in line could move 450 paces in a turn. I'm having some difficulty immagining that a unit that is:
*some 6 or 8 ranks deep,
*where it was important that the pikes and musketeers keep abreast of each other,
*the pikemen may be wearing armour,
*where the order of the musketteers is important because of the firing proceedure i.e. rotating the ranks so that the man at the back passes through the men in front of him to fire (or indeed in reverse),
*where it was important to keep a certain distance from the man next to you because of carrying lighted 'matches'and there being lots of loose powder around,
can move 50% further in the same time period than a Napoleonic or ACW infantry unit only 2 or 3 ranks deep!
I was also under the impression that 'cadenced' marching was brought in in the next century partly at least because infantry moved so slowly and therefore speeded units up rather than slowed them down.
As I said I'm struggling with this one.

Still a great set of rules which I'm bursting to try out on the table.

Cheers Paul

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, "scoted01" <edharding@...> wrote:
>
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire? The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does seem OK if that was your intention.
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports............
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight. They
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column. We'll
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to stop
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there is
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column moves
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement for
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement common
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect. Second
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it is
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during the
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will be
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase for
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found at
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or a
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100% is
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably be
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive any
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequent end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge those
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them and
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are mounted
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in the
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you go
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest light
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but we
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it went
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1809 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited. It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop' a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
 
Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly appreciated
 
All the best
Nigel

 


From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.

We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that formation isn't available to them.

It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?

Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire? The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does seem OK if that was your intention.

Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great addition to your set,

Ed
--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
> thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> about the lack of supports............
> Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
> as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight. They
> could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>
> I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column. We'll
> get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
> battles in Scotland!
>
> One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> they are allowed to charge?
>
> cheers
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column formations.
> > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
> > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >to
> >
> > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to stop
> >
> > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
> > between itself and the threat.
> > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
> > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there is
> >no
> >
> > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
> > stopped.
> >
> > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> > Nigel
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> > Â
> > Nigel,
> > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> >
> > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >to
> >
> > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
> > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >as
> >
> > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column moves
> >
> > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> >
> >
> > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> >just
> >
> > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> >
> > Sure I'll run another game this week
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement for
>
> > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > >frequent
> > >
> > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > >heavier
> > >
> > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement common
> >to
> >
> > >
> > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
> >the
> >
> >
> > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
> >the
> >
> >
> > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > periods.
> > >
> > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >of
> >
> >
> > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect. Second
> >
> > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it is
> >
> > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > >
> > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
> >the
> >
> >
> > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during the
> >
> > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will be
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase for
> >
> > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > >
> > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found at
> >
> > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> >largely
> >
> > >
> > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
> > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
> >each
> >
> > >
> > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or a
> >
> > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100% is
>
> > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> moments.
> > >
> > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> >losses
> >
> >
> > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably be
>
> > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive any
> >
> > > morale test taken during the subsequent end of turn phase.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Nigel,
> > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> >though
> >
> > >
> > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > >
> > >
> > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> >typical
> >
> > >
> > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> >here?
> >
> > >
> > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> >typical
> >
> > >
> > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> >aren't
> >
> >
> > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
> > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
> > >
> > >
> > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
> > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge those
>
> > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > >
> > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them and
> >
> > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> >rated
> >
> > >
> > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are mounted
>
> > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > >
> > >
> > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
> > > itself?
> > >
> > >
> > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> >movement
> >
> >
> > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in the
>
> > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you go
> >
> > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> >charge?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
> >pdr
> >
> >
> > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> >takes
> >
> >
> > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest light
> >
> > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > >
> > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but we
> >
> > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it went
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the rules!
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> >
>


#1810 From: "scoted01" <edharding@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
scoted01
Send Email Send Email
 
I can certainly do that, I probably would just do it based on a unit having pike
or not rather than trying to maintain multiple move distances based on armour
rating. I do worry about the system calculating the fire on a charge as I expect
it will compute with the higher move distance,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed and Paul,
> Hmmmmmm - I'm going to check my references about cadenced marching - that's
the
> first time that I heard it was instituted to actually speed up movement.
> And I take your point about armor and carriage of pikes [and for that matter
the
> heavy arquebus and matchlocks] - in the meantime, you can always institute
your
> own reduced movement, and ignore the declared charge distance [except for the
> bonus]. In this case, if you assume 300 paces as the typical movement of a
line
> of pike and shot, add 75 paces for the charge, and then whatever bonus you
get.
> If you prefer, you could add movement from this base figure, assuming this is
> for a half-armored unit, a unit with leather/buff coats, might move at 375
> paces, and a unit with no armor at 450 paces.
>
> Therefore:
> Half armored foot unit has a normal movement of 300 paces, with 375 pace
normal
> charge distance.
> Leather foot unit has a normal movement of 375 paces, with 450 pace normal
> charge distance, and
> Unarmored foot unit has a normal movement of 450 paces, with 525 pace normal
> charge distance.
>
> The retirement and rout distances will always be the same, no matter what the
> forward movement is, so you don't need to worry about that.
>
> Hope this helps
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: paul689570 <paulsmith116@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 5:16:46 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
>
>
> Hi Nigel
>
> Hope you don't mind me chiming in on this one.
> I must admit I was a bit taken aback when I saw that infantry units comprising
> musketeers and pikes in line could move 450 paces in a turn. I'm having some
> difficulty immagining that a unit that is:
> *some 6 or 8 ranks deep,
> *where it was important that the pikes and musketeers keep abreast of each
> other,
> *the pikemen may be wearing armour,
> *where the order of the musketteers is important because of the firing
> proceedure i.e. rotating the ranks so that the man at the back passes through
> the men in front of him to fire (or indeed in reverse),
> *where it was important to keep a certain distance from the man next to you
> because of carrying lighted 'matches'and there being lots of loose powder
> around,
> can move 50% further in the same time period than a Napoleonic or ACW infantry
> unit only 2 or 3 ranks deep!
> I was also under the impression that 'cadenced' marching was brought in in the
> next century partly at least because infantry moved so slowly and therefore
> speeded units up rather than slowed them down.
>
> As I said I'm struggling with this one.
>
> Still a great set of rules which I'm bursting to try out on the table.
>
> Cheers Paul
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, "scoted01" <edharding@> wrote:
> >
> > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> >
> > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
units
> >with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
tight
> >formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
into
> >Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> >formation isn't available to them.
> >
> > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if
they
> >have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> >seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
Irish
> >unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option
to
> >fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and
the
> >Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
morale
> >and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
against
> >a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> >
> > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> >it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
fire?
> >The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
will
> >retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> >charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> >seem OK if that was your intention.
> >
> >
> > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> >with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> >addition to your set,
> >
> > Ed
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
> >was
> >
> > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
point
> >
> > > about the lack of supports............
> > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> >them
> >
> > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up
fight.
> >They
> >
> > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >
> > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play
ACW
> >
> > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
> >the
> >
> > > battles in Scotland!
> > >
> > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry
so
>
> > > they are allowed to charge?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
later
> >
> > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> >formations.
> > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150
paces,
> >it
> >
> > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> >attempt
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
> >pass
> >
> > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt
to
> >stop
> >
> > > >
> > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> >comfortable
> >
> > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
> >will
> >
> > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
given
> >up
> >
> > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> >distance
> >
> > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to
pass
>
> > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> >defending
> >
> > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and
there
> >is
> >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> >wasn't
> >
> > > > stopped.
> > > >
> > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> >failing
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
> >300
> >
> > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
> >just
> >
> > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
> >foot
> >
> > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> >looser,
> >
> > > >as
> > > >
> > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the
column
> >moves
> >
> > > >
> > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
men),
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
movement
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced
and
> > > > >frequent
> > > > >
> > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed.
The
>
> > > > >heavier
> > > > >
> > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> >with
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> >kept
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
later
>
> > > > > periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> >number
> >
> > > >of
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
more
> >
> > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > > >
> > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
fewer
> >
> > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire
phase,
> >it is
> >
> > > >
> > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
> >and
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
during
> >the
> >
> > > >
> > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> >will be
> >
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
phase
> >for
> >
> > > >
> > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> >found at
> >
> > > >
> > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will
be
> > > >largely
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as
opposed
> >to
> >
> > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you
have
> >in
> >
> > > >each
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one,
two
> >or a
> >
> > > >
> > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
100%
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > moments.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been
for
> > > >losses
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
probably
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
survive
> >any
> >
> > > >
> > > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn
phase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
Scots
>
> > > >though
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and
575
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
reasoning
> >
> > > >here?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods,
where
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed
troops
> > > >aren't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> >pike
> >
> > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> >somewhat?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move
rates
> >are
> >
> > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> >other
> >
> > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> > >
> > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where
in
> >the
> >
> > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
them
> >and
> >
> > > >
> > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true
for
> > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
average
> >
> > > >rated
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> > >
> > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
firing
> >
> > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> >melee
> >
> > > > > itself?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > > >movement
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> >charge
> >
> > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit
in
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
> >you go
> >
> > > >
> > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > > >charge?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had
2
> >1
> >
> > > >pdr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit
only
>
> > > >takes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes
(finest
> >light
> >
> > > >
> > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
> >but we
> >
> > > >
> > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and
it
> >went
> >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> >local
> >
> > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> >rules!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#1811 From: "scoted01" <edharding@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
scoted01
Send Email Send Email
 
Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive
it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but
I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of
the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire -
but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option
to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
point
> > about the lack of supports............
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play
ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces,
it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given
up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and
there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase,
it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed
to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have
in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two
or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn
phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates
are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in
the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2
1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#1812 From: Robert Walter <robwalter556@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 5:20 pm
Subject: Re: Armour classification for ECW
robwalter556
Send Email Send Email
 
Nigel,
   Don't forget to send me the files for the ECW game you ran at Historicon so I can start my learning curve. I was shocked to realize I already have 13-14 pike blocks of 12 to 16 and an equal number of musketeers for each block, 60 odd horse, a dozen dragoons & a unit of Cuirassiers. I am waiting for the bases to arrive, before the dreaded rebasing begins.God, I used to paint like crazy.
   Only a couple of weeks til the EPL starts. Go ye Reds!
 
cheers,
rob
eureka miniatures usa

--- On Sun, 8/1/10, npmarsh@... <npmarsh@...> wrote:

From: npmarsh@... <npmarsh@...>
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Armour classification for ECW
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 11:31 AM

 
Paul,
The armor categories are as follows:

Horse:
Full - Cuirassiers e.g. Haslerigg's lobsters
Half - Harquebusiers with buff coat, back and breast plate and pot helmet.
Leather - Horse just with buff coats
 
Foot: [Basically only the pikemen armor is considered]
Half - a unit with musketeers without any armour but with pikemen in armour including helmet
Leather - as above but pikemen with buff coats and possibly helmets
Leather - both musketeers and pikemen in buff coats (a book I have says the London trained bands were like this although the buff coats were sleeveless).
 
Thank you for asking this - I failed to include it as a written description in the system manual
 
All the best
Nigel

 


From: paul689570 <paulsmith116@ btinternet. com>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 5:27:19 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Armour classification for ECW

 
Hi Nigel

I'm just putting some ECW army list together and would be grateful for some guidance on the what armour classification to give the following units:

Horse:
Cuirassiers e.g. Haslerigg's lobsters
Harquebusiers with buff coat, back and breast plate and pot helmet.
Horse just with buff coats

Foot:
a unit with musketeers without any armour but with pikemen in armour including helmet
as above but pikemen with buff coats and possibly helmets
both musketeers and pikemen in buff coats (a book I have says the London trained bands were like this although the buff coats were sleeveless).

Cheers Paul



#1813 From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
gonatas101
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes. It does seem that the pike have been forgotten in all this. Even if actual HTH is a rarity in period the pike would be a factor in whether the enemy actually closes or not?


From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:56:02 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports............
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1814 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Mark,
The system defintely considers the pike both as an offensive and defensive weapon - but it should be understood that during the charge to contact the system considers the comparative morale status of opposing units much more than it does any other factor. So during the charge to contact, if one side is perceptively more 'confident' it will undoubtedly prevail in any confrontation, where all other circumstances are equal.
 
During this period there was far less opportunity to 'soften up' an opponent, either through artillery or as in 19th century engagements skirmish fire, or destructively demolish an opponent at close range with firepower. Under these conditions morale would play a much more important role in the final moments before actual contact was made. The system also assumes that the actual physical clash of two forces was very unlikely, with one side or the other giving way before the moment of impact. Any casualties between foot units that might occur in the open, are as a result of stragglers being unable to avoid a pike or the clubing action of a musketeer - it was probably very likely that pikemen would end up falling over in the general crush and at that point their fate would be sealed.
 
Nigel
 

 


From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:33:49 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Yes. It does seem that the pike have been forgotten in all this. Even if actual HTH is a rarity in period the pike would be a factor in whether the enemy actually closes or not?


From: scoted01 <edharding@comcast. net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:56:02 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: scoted01 <edharding@.. .>
> To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports.... ........
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordere d infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/ retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1815 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
You don't need to worry about the distance and relative fire effect - this is calculated based upon the distant input for the charge, so if the unit only charges 375 paces, that is the distance that will be used in the calculations.
 
Nigel

 


From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:38:40 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

I can certainly do that, I probably would just do it based on a unit having pike or not rather than trying to maintain multiple move distances based on armour rating. I do worry about the system calculating the fire on a charge as I expect it will compute with the higher move distance,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed and Paul,
> Hmmmmmm - I'm going to check my references about cadenced marching - that's the
> first time that I heard it was instituted to actually speed up movement.
> And I take your point about armor and carriage of pikes [and for that matter the
> heavy arquebus and matchlocks] - in the meantime, you can always institute your
> own reduced movement, and ignore the declared charge distance [except for the
> bonus]. In this case, if you assume 300 paces as the typical movement of a line
> of pike and shot, add 75 paces for the charge, and then whatever bonus you get.
> If you prefer, you could add movement from this base figure, assuming this is
> for a half-armored unit, a unit with leather/buff coats, might move at 375
> paces, and a unit with no armor at 450 paces.
>
> Therefore:
> Half armored foot unit has a normal movement of 300 paces, with 375 pace normal
> charge distance.
> Leather foot unit has a normal movement of 375 paces, with 450 pace normal
> charge distance, and
> Unarmored foot unit has a normal movement of 450 paces, with 525 pace normal
> charge distance.
>
> The retirement and rout distances will always be the same, no matter what the
> forward movement is, so you don't need to worry about that.
>
> Hope this helps
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: paul689570 <paulsmith116@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 5:16:46 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
>
>
> Hi Nigel
>
> Hope you don't mind me chiming in on this one.
> I must admit I was a bit taken aback when I saw that infantry units comprising
> musketeers and pikes in line could move 450 paces in a turn. I'm having some
> difficulty immagining that a unit that is:
> *some 6 or 8 ranks deep,
> *where it was important that the pikes and musketeers keep abreast of each
> other,
> *the pikemen may be wearing armour,
> *where the order of the musketteers is important because of the firing
> proceedure i.e. rotating the ranks so that the man at the back passes through
> the men in front of him to fire (or indeed in reverse),
> *where it was important to keep a certain distance from the man next to you
> because of carrying lighted 'matches'and there being lots of loose powder
> around,
> can move 50% further in the same time period than a Napoleonic or ACW infantry
> unit only 2 or 3 ranks deep!
> I was also under the impression that 'cadenced' marching was brought in in the
> next century partly at least because infantry moved so slowly and therefore
> speeded units up rather than slowed them down.
>
> As I said I'm struggling with this one.
>
> Still a great set of rules which I'm bursting to try out on the table.
>
> Cheers Paul
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, "scoted01" <edharding@> wrote:
> >
> > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> >
> > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> >with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> >formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> >Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> >formation isn't available to them.
> >
> > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> >have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> >seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> >unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> >fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> >Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> >and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> >a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> >
> > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> >it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> >The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> >retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> >charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> >seem OK if that was your intention.
> >
> >
> > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> >with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> >addition to your set,
> >
> > Ed
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
> >was
> >
> > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> >
> > > about the lack of supports............
> > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> >them
> >
> > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >
> > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> >
> > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
> >the
> >
> > > battles in Scotland!
> > >
> > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
>
> > > they are allowed to charge?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> >
> > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> >formations.
> > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces,
> >it
> >
> > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> >attempt
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
> >pass
> >
> > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > > >
> > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> >comfortable
> >
> > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
> >will
> >
> > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given
> >up
> >
> > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> >distance
> >
> > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
>
> > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> >defending
> >
> > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> >wasn't
> >
> > > > stopped.
> > > >
> > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> >failing
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
> >300
> >
> > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
> >just
> >
> > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
> >foot
> >
> > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> >looser,
> >
> > > >as
> > > >
> > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > > >
> > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > > >frequent
> > > > >
> > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
>
> > > > >heavier
> > > > >
> > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> >with
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> >kept
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
>
> > > > > periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> >number
> >
> > > >of
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> >
> > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > > >
> > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> >
> > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase,
> >it is
> >
> > > >
> > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
> >and
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > > >
> > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> >will be
> >
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > > >
> > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> >found at
> >
> > > >
> > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > > >largely
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed
> >to
> >
> > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have
> >in
> >
> > > >each
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two
> >or a
> >
> > > >
> > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > moments.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > > >losses
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > > >
> > > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
>
> > > >though
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> >
> > > >here?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > > >aren't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> >pike
> >
> > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> >somewhat?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates
> >are
> >
> > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> >other
> >
> > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> > >
> > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in
> >the
> >
> > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > > >
> > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> >
> > > >rated
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> > >
> > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> >
> > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> >melee
> >
> > > > > itself?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > > >movement
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> >charge
> >
> > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
> >you go
> >
> > > >
> > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > > >charge?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2
> >1
> >
> > > >pdr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
>
> > > >takes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > > >
> > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
> >but we
> >
> > > >
> > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> >local
> >
> > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> >rules!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1816 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a combat will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face away from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible morale advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand and hold it's position.
 
Nigel

 


From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports............
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1817 From: "scoted01" <edharding@...>
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
scoted01
Send Email Send Email
 
understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before contact
and break?

It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier for a
unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests  now just to see and the
units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I even
had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its counter
charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a combat
> will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face
away
> from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker
> [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible
morale
> advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand
and
> hold it's position.
>
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to
receive
> it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but
> I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of
> the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> breaking and falling back facing away,
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units
was
> > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire -
> >but
> >
> > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> >limited.
> >
> > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
> >'stop'
> >
> > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line
with
>
> > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> variables.
> >
> > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always
greatly
> > appreciated
> >
> > All the best
> > Nigel
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >  
> > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> >
> > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
units
> >
> > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
tight
> >
> > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
into
> >
> > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like
that
> > formation isn't available to them.
> >
> > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if
they
>
> > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
Irish
> >
> > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option
to
> >
> > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and
the
>
> > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
morale
> >
> > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
against
> >
> > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> >
> > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
> >fire?
> >
> > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
will
> >
> > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect
does
> > seem OK if that was your intention.
> >
> >
> > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > addition to your set,
> >
> > Ed
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
> >was
> >
> >
> > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
point
> >
> > > about the lack of supports............
> > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> >them
> >
> >
> > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up
fight.
> > >They
> > >
> > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >
> > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play
ACW
> >
> > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> > >We'll
> > >
> > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > battles in Scotland!
> > >
> > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry
so
>
> > > they are allowed to charge?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
later
> >
> > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > formations.
> > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150
paces,
> >it
> >
> >
> > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> >attempt
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
> >pass
> >
> > >
> > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt
to
>
> > >stop
> > >
> > > >
> > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> >comfortable
> >
> > >
> > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
> >will
> >
> > >
> > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
given
> >up
> >
> > >
> > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> >distance
> >
> >
> > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to
pass
>
> > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> >defending
> >
> > >
> > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not
possible,ÃÆ'‚ and
> >there
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> >wasn't
> >
> >
> > > > stopped.
> > > >
> > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> >failing
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
> >300
> >
> >
> > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
> >just
> >
> > >
> > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
> >foot
> >
> > >
> > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> >looser,
> >
> > >
> > > >as
> > > >
> > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the
column
> > >moves
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
men),
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
movement
>
> > >for
> > >
> > >
> > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced
and
> > > > >frequent
> > > > >
> > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed.
The
>
> > > > >heavier
> > > > >
> > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> > >common
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> >with
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> >kept
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
later
>
> > > > > periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> >number
> >
> > >
> > > >of
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
more
> >
> > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> > >Second
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
fewer
> >
> > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire
phase,
> >it
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
> >and
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
during
> >
> > >the
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> >will
> >
> > >be
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
phase
> >
> > >for
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> >found
> >
> > >at
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will
be
> > > >largely
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as
opposed
> >to
> >
> >
> > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you
have
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >each
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one,
two
> >or
> >
> > >a
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
100%
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > >
> > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > moments.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been
for
> > > >losses
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
probably
> >
> > >be
> > >
> > >
> > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
survive
> >
> > >any
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > morale test taken during the
subsequentÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ end of turn
> >phase.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
Scots
>
> > > >though
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and
575
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
reasoning
> >
> > > >here?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods,
where
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed
troops
> > > >aren't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> >pike
> >
> >
> > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> >somewhat?
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move
rates
> >are
> >
> > >
> > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> >other
> >
> >
> > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> > >those
> > >
> > >
> > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where
in
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
them
> >
> > >and
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true
for
> > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
average
> >
> > > >rated
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> > >mounted
> > >
> > >
> > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
firing
> >
> > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> >melee
> >
> >
> > > > > itself?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > > >movement
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> >charge
> >
> > >
> > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit
in
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
> >you
> >
> > >go
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > > >charge?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had
2
> >1
> >
> >
> > > >pdr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit
only
>
> > > >takes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes
(finest
> > >light
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
> >but
> >
> > >we
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and
it
>
> > >went
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> >local
> >
> > >
> > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> > rules!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#1818 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
Every situation will be different - and no it is not the intent of the system that the only defense against charging foot is to countercharge - I could run a hundred tests, and come up with situations where the defending unit will stand and halt the attackers. The fact that your units seem to not want to stand seems to suggest that their best defense would be to countercharge - that's fine, but it's not the only defense, it's simply one defense, and the one that seems best suited to the troop types you've created.
 
Remember, if one side has attack orders and the other defend, the defending unit that wants to countercharge must have an attached officer, otherwise the unit commander will probably not display enough initiative to countercharge.
 
All the best
Nigel
 

 


From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:22:40 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before contact and break?

It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier for a unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests now just to see and the units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I even had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its counter charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a combat
> will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face away
> from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker
> [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible morale
> advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand and
> hold it's position.
>
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive
> it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but
> I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of
> the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> breaking and falling back facing away,
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire -
> >but
> >
> > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> >limited.
> >
> > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
> >'stop'
> >
> > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
>
> > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> variables.
> >
> > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> > appreciated
> >
> > All the best
> > Nigel
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >  
> > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> >
> > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> >
> > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> >
> > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> >
> > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> > formation isn't available to them.
> >
> > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
>
> > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> >
> > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> >
> > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
>
> > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> >
> > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> >
> > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> >
> > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
> >fire?
> >
> > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> >
> > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> > seem OK if that was your intention.
> >
> >
> > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > addition to your set,
> >
> > Ed
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
> >was
> >
> >
> > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> >
> > > about the lack of supports............
> > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> >them
> >
> >
> > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> > >They
> > >
> > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >
> > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> >
> > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> > >We'll
> > >
> > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > battles in Scotland!
> > >
> > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
>
> > > they are allowed to charge?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> >
> > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > formations.
> > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces,
> >it
> >
> >
> > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> >attempt
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
> >pass
> >
> > >
> > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
>
> > >stop
> > >
> > > >
> > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> >comfortable
> >
> > >
> > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
> >will
> >
> > >
> > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given
> >up
> >
> > >
> > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> >distance
> >
> >
> > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to pass
>
> > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> >defending
> >
> > >
> > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible,ÃÆ'‚ and
> >there
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> >wasn't
> >
> >
> > > > stopped.
> > > >
> > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> >failing
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
> >300
> >
> >
> > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
> >just
> >
> > >
> > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
> >foot
> >
> > >
> > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> >looser,
> >
> > >
> > > >as
> > > >
> > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> > >moves
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
>
> > >for
> > >
> > >
> > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > > >frequent
> > > > >
> > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
>
> > > > >heavier
> > > > >
> > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> > >common
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> >with
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> >kept
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
>
> > > > > periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> >number
> >
> > >
> > > >of
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> >
> > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> > >Second
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> >
> > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase,
> >it
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
> >and
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >
> > >the
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> >will
> >
> > >be
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >
> > >for
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> >found
> >
> > >at
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > > >largely
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed
> >to
> >
> >
> > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >each
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two
> >or
> >
> > >a
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >
> > >is
> > >
> > >
> > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > moments.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > > >losses
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >
> > >be
> > >
> > >
> > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >
> > >any
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ end of turn
> >phase.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
>
> > > >though
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> >
> > > >here?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > > >typical
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > > >aren't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> >pike
> >
> >
> > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> >somewhat?
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates
> >are
> >
> > >
> > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> >other
> >
> >
> > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> > >those
> > >
> > >
> > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >
> > >and
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> >
> > > >rated
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> > >mounted
> > >
> > >
> > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> >
> > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> >melee
> >
> >
> > > > > itself?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > > >movement
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> >charge
> >
> > >
> > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
> >you
> >
> > >go
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > > >charge?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2
> >1
> >
> >
> > > >pdr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
>
> > > >takes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> > >light
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
> >but
> >
> > >we
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
>
> > >went
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> >local
> >
> > >
> > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> > rules!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1819 From: "Kenneth" <k.portner@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 12:03 am
Subject: How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?
kenportner
Send Email Send Email
 
The Appendix to the rule book says to use 1 5/8" wide bases with 2x2 figures
representing 150 real men.


This will produce some very small units for AWI battles.

I'd like my units to be larger. (at least 12 figures maybe up to 24-28 figures).

How would I adjust the distances in the rules to accomodate this?  Thanks.

Ken

#1820 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Kenneth,
I'm in the process [amongst a million other things] of updating the various manuals.
That appendix information dates back quite some time, and new research has altered my thinking somewhat on the file frontage of troops in battle. The AWI period being one of those that has been affected by that thinking.
So let me try to give you a heads up on where I'm going with all this.

The first thought is how to to represent two rank and three rank formations. My thoughts on this lean towards using a different figure frontage [assuming use of 25/28 mm figures], so a unit in three ranks will have an individual figure frontage of 5/8", and a unit in two ranks will have an individual figure frontage of 3/4". The figures can be based either in single or double ranks to suit personal preference, but I personally prefer double ranks.

Now we have to determine how many men this represents. British Regulations called for a close order file frontage of 22" with a spacing of 6" between files, or a total of 28". When in open two-rank order [the default for British infantry in America from 1776] the file frontage was 22" with 18" between files, or a total of 40". The Germans and Americans can be assumed to use the same basic widths, remembering that the Hessians never deployed in open two-rank order [the Elector wouldn't countenance the idea], however the Brunswick troops with Burgoyne did use the formation on occasion.

So if we are using a ground scale of 1" = 25 paces, or 1" = 675" [assumes 1 pace = 27"], a 5/8" base frontage represents 675 x 5/8 = 422 inches. Divide this by the file width of 28" for close order troops and you get, 422/28 = 15 men. Therefore for every 5/8" of base frontage there are 15 men in one rank or 45 in three. So a 2 x 2 base represents 90 men in three ranks. You should add a number to this to represent the supernumeraries [Officers, NCO's and musicians], and I tend to use about 10%, so the actual number of all ranks would be 99 men. So if you are representing a German battalion of 400 men, you would need four bases each of four figures.

If you are representing an American battalion in two rank close order, the base frontage would be 3/4", which represents 675 x 3/4 = 506 inches. Divide this by the file width of 28", and you get 506/28 = 18 men. Therefore for every 3/4" of base frontage there are 18 men in one rank or 36 in two. So a 2 x 2 base represents 72 rank and file or 79 all ranks inclusive of supernumeraries. So if you are representing an American battalion of 300 men in two rank close order you would need four bases each of four figures.

If the unit is in two rank open order, the base frontage will be 3/4", which represents 675 x 3/4 = 506 inches. Divide this by the file width of 40" and you get 506/40 = 13 men. Therefore for every 3/4" of base frontage there are 13 men in one rank, or 26 men in two ranks. So a 2 x 2 base represents 52 rank and file or 57 all ranks inclusive of supernumeraries. So if you are representing a British battalion of 300 men in two rank open order you would need between five and six bases each of four figures.

What should be clear from the above is that it's not a figure ratio that's important, its the occupied frontage that's important.

If you wanted your 16 figure American battalion to actually have 24 figures, there are two ways to approach that, either increase the represented battalion size from 300 men to 450 men [could be multiple battalions/regiments], or change the ground scale, so the wider unit still represents 300 men. This would mean that one inch represents 37.5 paces - which may have been the answer you were looking for all along.

Hope this helps [and wasn't too confusing]

Nigel



From: Kenneth <k.portner@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 8:03:38 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?

 

The Appendix to the rule book says to use 1 5/8" wide bases with 2x2 figures representing 150 real men.

This will produce some very small units for AWI battles.

I'd like my units to be larger. (at least 12 figures maybe up to 24-28 figures).

How would I adjust the distances in the rules to accomodate this? Thanks.

Ken


#1821 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Kenneth,
Wait a minute - ignore that last sentence - it should read:
This would mean that one inch represents 16.6 paces, or 1 1/2" = 25 paces - which may have been the answer you were looking for all along. [Much better]

Nigel


From: "npmarsh@..." <npmarsh@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 9:37:09 AM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?

 

Kenneth,
I'm in the process [amongst a million other things] of updating the various manuals.
That appendix information dates back quite some time, and new research has altered my thinking somewhat on the file frontage of troops in battle. The AWI period being one of those that has been affected by that thinking.
So let me try to give you a heads up on where I'm going with all this.

The first thought is how to to represent two rank and three rank formations. My thoughts on this lean towards using a different figure frontage [assuming use of 25/28 mm figures], so a unit in three ranks will have an individual figure frontage of 5/8", and a unit in two ranks will have an individual figure frontage of 3/4". The figures can be based either in single or double ranks to suit personal preference, but I personally prefer double ranks.

Now we have to determine how many men this represents. British Regulations called for a close order file frontage of 22" with a spacing of 6" between files, or a total of 28". When in open two-rank order [the default for British infantry in America from 1776] the file frontage was 22" with 18" between files, or a total of 40". The Germans and Americans can be assumed to use the same basic widths, remembering that the Hessians never deployed in open two-rank order [the Elector wouldn't countenance the idea], however the Brunswick troops with Burgoyne did use the formation on occasion.

So if we are using a ground scale of 1" = 25 paces, or 1" = 675" [assumes 1 pace = 27"], a 5/8" base frontage represents 675 x 5/8 = 422 inches. Divide this by the file width of 28" for close order troops and you get, 422/28 = 15 men. Therefore for every 5/8" of base frontage there are 15 men in one rank or 45 in three. So a 2 x 2 base represents 90 men in three ranks. You should add a number to this to represent the supernumeraries [Officers, NCO's and musicians], and I tend to use about 10%, so the actual number of all ranks would be 99 men. So if you are representing a German battalion of 400 men, you would need four bases each of four figures.

If you are representing an American battalion in two rank close order, the base frontage would be 3/4", which represents 675 x 3/4 = 506 inches. Divide this by the file width of 28", and you get 506/28 = 18 men. Therefore for every 3/4" of base frontage there are 18 men in one rank or 36 in two. So a 2 x 2 base represents 72 rank and file or 79 all ranks inclusive of supernumeraries. So if you are representing an American battalion of 300 men in two rank close order you would need four bases each of four figures.

If the unit is in two rank open order, the base frontage will be 3/4", which represents 675 x 3/4 = 506 inches. Divide this by the file width of 40" and you get 506/40 = 13 men. Therefore for every 3/4" of base frontage there are 13 men in one rank, or 26 men in two ranks. So a 2 x 2 base represents 52 rank and file or 57 all ranks inclusive of supernumeraries. So if you are representing a British battalion of 300 men in two rank open order you would need between five and six bases each of four figures.

What should be clear from the above is that it's not a figure ratio that's important, its the occupied frontage that's important.

If you wanted your 16 figure American battalion to actually have 24 figures, there are two ways to approach that, either increase the represented battalion size from 300 men to 450 men [could be multiple battalions/regiment s], or change the ground scale, so the wider unit still represents 300 men. This would mean that one inch represents 37.5 paces - which may have been the answer you were looking for all along.

Hope this helps [and wasn't too confusing]

Nigel



From: Kenneth <k.portner@verizon. net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 8:03:38 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] How to figure basing for 18th Cent. Rules?

 

The Appendix to the rule book says to use 1 5/8" wide bases with 2x2 figures representing 150 real men.

This will produce some very small units for AWI battles.

I'd like my units to be larger. (at least 12 figures maybe up to 24-28 figures).

How would I adjust the distances in the rules to accomodate this? Thanks.

Ken


#1822 From: "scoted01" <edharding@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
scoted01
Send Email Send Email
 
Maybe you need to compose a tatical guidelines section in the manual letting
people know the best way to run units? I do see the same behaviour with the ECW
OB that comes with the game, easier to get the units to counter charge than to
stand against a charge starting from in close. I've also experimented with foot
vs horse and unless the horse are charging from a long distance, 400+ paces, the
foot should always try to form square around the pikes as the shot will never
stop the horse, good thing to know as most pike and shot folks might  be like me
and assume the pike step forward to take the charge and the shot fall back
around the pike automatically,

cheers

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Every situation will be different - and no it is not the intent of the system
> that the only defense against charging foot is to countercharge - I could run
a
> hundred tests, and come up with situations where the defending unit will stand
> and halt the attackers. The fact that your units seem to not want to stand
seems
> to suggest that their best defense would be to countercharge - that's fine,
but
> it's not the only defense, it's simply one defense, and the one that seems
best
> suited to the troop types you've created.
>
>
> Remember, if one side has attack orders and the other defend, the defending
unit
> that wants to countercharge must have an attached officer, otherwise the unit
> commander will probably not display enough initiative to countercharge.
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:22:40 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before contact
> and break?
>
>
> It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier for
a
> unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests now just to see and
the
> units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I even
> had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its counter
> charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a
combat
>
> > will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> > outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face
away
> >
> > from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker
> > [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> > To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible
morale
> >
> > advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> > advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand
> >and
> >
> > hold it's position.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >  
> > Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to
> >receive
> >
> > it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit
but
>
> > I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part
of
>
> > the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> > breaking and falling back facing away,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units
was
> >
> > > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the
further
> > > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire
-
>
> > >but
> > >
> > > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> > >limited.
> > >
> > > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
> > >'stop'
> > >
> > > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line
> >with
> >
> >
> > > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> > variables.
> > >
> > > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always
greatly
> >
> > > appreciated
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >  
> > > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> > >
> > > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
> >units
> >
> > >
> > > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
> >tight
> >
> > >
> > > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
> >into
> >
> > >
> > > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like
that
> >
> > > formation isn't available to them.
> > >
> > > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if
> >they
> >
> >
> > > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight
it
> > > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
> >Irish
> >
> > >
> > > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge
(option
> >to
> >
> > >
> > > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and
> >the
> >
> >
> > > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
> >morale
> >
> > >
> > > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
> >against
> >
> > >
> > > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> > >
> > > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find
is
>
> > > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
> > >fire?
> > >
> > > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
> >will
> >
> > >
> > > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a
unit
> > > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect
does
> >
> > > seem OK if that was your intention.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same
thing
>
> > > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > > addition to your set,
> > >
> > > Ed
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods
[I
>
> > >was
> > >
> > >
> > > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
> >point
> >
> > >
> > > > about the lack of supports............
> > > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't
consider
> > >them
> > >
> > >
> > > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up
fight.
> >
> > > >They
> > > >
> > > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > > >
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we
play
> >ACW
> >
> > >
> > > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in
column.
>
> > > >We'll
> > > >
> > > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them
in
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > battles in Scotland!
> > > >
> > > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as
cavalry
> >so
> >
> >
> > > > they are allowed to charge?
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
> >later
> >
> > >
> > > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > > formations.
> > > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150
paces,
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > >
> > > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> > >attempt
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat,
and
>
> > >pass
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can
attempt
> >to
> >
> >
> > > >stop
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> > >comfortable
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces,
it
>
> > >will
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
> >given
> >
> > >up
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> > >distance
> > >
> > >
> > > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to
> >pass
> >
> >
> > > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> > >defending
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not
> >possible,ÃÆ'Æ'‚ and
> >
> > >there
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> > >wasn't
> > >
> > >
> > > > > stopped.
> > > > >
> > > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> > >failing
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces
or
>
> > >300
> > >
> > >
> > > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move.
We
>
> > >just
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as
the
>
> > >foot
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> > >looser,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >as
> > > > >
> > > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the
column
> >
> > > >moves
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
> >men),
> >
> > >
> > > > >just
> > > > >
> > > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
> >movement
> >
> >
> > > >for
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced
and
> >
> > > > > >frequent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed.
> >The
> >
> >
> > > > > >heavier
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace
movement
> > > >common
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to
close
> > >with
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are
still
> > >kept
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
> >later
> >
> >
> > > > > > periods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> > >number
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >of
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
> >more
> >
> > >
> > > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to
expect.
>
> > > >Second
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
> >fewer
> >
> > >
> > > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire
phase,
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn
phase,
>
> > >and
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
> >during
> >
> > >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so
there
> > >will
> > >
> > > >be
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >no
> > > > > >
> > > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
> >phase
> >
> > >
> > > >for
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> > >found
> > >
> > > >at
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will
be
> >
> > > > >largely
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as
opposed
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you
have
> >
> > >in
> > >
> > >
> > > > >each
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one,
> >two
> >
> > >or
> > >
> > > >a
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also
the
> > > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
> >100%
> >
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > > moments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been
for
> >
> > > > >losses
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
> >probably
> >
> > >
> > > >be
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
> >survive
> >
> > >
> > > >any
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > morale test taken during the
> >subsequentÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚
end of turn
> >
> > >phase.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
> >Scots
> >
> >
> > > > >though
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a
few
>
> > > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and
575
> >
> > > > >typical
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
> >reasoning
> >
> > >
> > > > >here?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods,
where
> >
> > > > >typical
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed
troops
> >
> > > > >aren't
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to
18'
> > >pike
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> > >somewhat?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move
rates
> >
> > >are
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> > >other
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in
charge
>
> > > >those
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where
in
> >
> > >the
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
> >them
> >
> > >
> > > >and
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true
for
> >
> > > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
> >average
> >
> > >
> > > > >rated
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> > > >mounted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
> >firing
> >
> > >
> > > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> > >melee
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > itself?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the
next
> > > > >movement
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> > >charge
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring
unit
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases
do
>
> > >you
> > >
> > > >go
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire
on
>
> > > > >charge?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We
had
> >2
> >
> > >1
> > >
> > >
> > > > >pdr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit
> >only
> >
> >
> > > > >takes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes
(finest
> >
> > > >light
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached
rally
>
> > >but
> > >
> > > >we
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again
and
> >it
> >
> >
> > > >went
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at
the
> > >local
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> > > rules!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#1823 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
I think the issue seems to be how to interpret the distance charged, and from where the charge actually begins.

Clearly there is an opportunity for game play, where a player moves his attacking unit as close as possible before declaring a charge, say 75 paces - then during the charge phase, the input would be 75 paces, and during the fire phase the defensive fire is limited due to the short distance. This is not the intent, and would only be correct if the attacker had halted at 75 paces, engaged in a limited firefight, and then in a subsequent turn elected to charge, or appeared from behind a terrain feature and had only been visible for 75 paces. Therefore if the unit has come from a distance, without halting, and the charge is simply declared from 75 paces, this is not acceptable and is incorrect. I'm at the office now, and don't remember the exact wording on screen during the charge phase, but I believe it has something to do with charge distance from when charge is visible. Therefore, you could, and should, input the distance from where the unit began it's advance - and not 75 paces [from when it was declared]. If this distance can't be accurately remembered or measured, then for infantry, inputting the maximum charge distance would be appropriate. I think that gets over the issue of defensive fire from charges declared close in.

Forming square or hedgehog was, from my understanding, the only formation for defense against a mounted attack - the musketeers simply had no way of effectively defending themselves in such a situation, other than forming around or within the protection of the pikemen. I think what you describe is effectively the formation of the hedgehog, where the pike defend the musketeers - but it did entail movement of the two wings, and this is when the unit is most vulnerable, and as a result should be considered as a formation change.

All the best
Nigel




From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:35:21 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Maybe you need to compose a tatical guidelines section in the manual letting people know the best way to run units? I do see the same behaviour with the ECW OB that comes with the game, easier to get the units to counter charge than to stand against a charge starting from in close. I've also experimented with foot vs horse and unless the horse are charging from a long distance, 400+ paces, the foot should always try to form square around the pikes as the shot will never stop the horse, good thing to know as most pike and shot folks might be like me and assume the pike step forward to take the charge and the shot fall back around the pike automatically,

cheers

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Every situation will be different - and no it is not the intent of the system
> that the only defense against charging foot is to countercharge - I could run a
> hundred tests, and come up with situations where the defending unit will stand
> and halt the attackers. The fact that your units seem to not want to stand seems
> to suggest that their best defense would be to countercharge - that's fine, but
> it's not the only defense, it's simply one defense, and the one that seems best
> suited to the troop types you've created.
>
>
> Remember, if one side has attack orders and the other defend, the defending unit
> that wants to countercharge must have an attached officer, otherwise the unit
> commander will probably not display enough initiative to countercharge.
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:22:40 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before contact
> and break?
>
>
> It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier for a
> unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests now just to see and the
> units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I even
> had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its counter
> charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a combat
>
> > will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> > outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face away
> >
> > from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker
> > [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> > To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible morale
> >
> > advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> > advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand
> >and
> >
> > hold it's position.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >  
> > Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to
> >receive
> >
> > it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but
>
> > I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of
>
> > the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> > breaking and falling back facing away,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> >
> > > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> > > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire -
>
> > >but
> > >
> > > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> > >limited.
> > >
> > > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
> > >'stop'
> > >
> > > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line
> >with
> >
> >
> > > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> > variables.
> > >
> > > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> >
> > > appreciated
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > >  
> > > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> > >
> > > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
> >units
> >
> > >
> > > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
> >tight
> >
> > >
> > > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
> >into
> >
> > >
> > > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> >
> > > formation isn't available to them.
> > >
> > > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if
> >they
> >
> >
> > > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> > > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
> >Irish
> >
> > >
> > > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option
> >to
> >
> > >
> > > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and
> >the
> >
> >
> > > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
> >morale
> >
> > >
> > > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
> >against
> >
> > >
> > > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> > >
> > > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
>
> > > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
> > >fire?
> > >
> > > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
> >will
> >
> > >
> > > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> > > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> >
> > > seem OK if that was your intention.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
>
> > > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > > addition to your set,
> > >
> > > Ed
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I
>
> > >was
> > >
> > >
> > > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
> >point
> >
> > >
> > > > about the lack of supports............
> > > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> > >them
> > >
> > >
> > > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >
> > > >They
> > > >
> > > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > > >
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play
> >ACW
> >
> > >
> > > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
>
> > > >We'll
> > > >
> > > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > battles in Scotland!
> > > >
> > > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry
> >so
> >
> >
> > > > they are allowed to charge?
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
> >later
> >
> > >
> > > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > > formations.
> > > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces,
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > >
> > > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> > >attempt
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and
>
> > >pass
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt
> >to
> >
> >
> > > >stop
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> > >comfortable
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it
>
> > >will
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
> >given
> >
> > >up
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> > >distance
> > >
> > >
> > > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to
> >pass
> >
> >
> > > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> > >defending
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not
> >possible,ÃÆ'Æ'‚ and
> >
> > >there
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > > >no
> > > > >
> > > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> > >wasn't
> > >
> > >
> > > > > stopped.
> > > > >
> > > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> > >failing
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or
>
> > >300
> > >
> > >
> > > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We
>
> > >just
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the
>
> > >foot
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> > >looser,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >as
> > > > >
> > > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >
> > > >moves
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
> >men),
> >
> > >
> > > > >just
> > > > >
> > > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
> >movement
> >
> >
> > > >for
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> >
> > > > > >frequent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed.
> >The
> >
> >
> > > > > >heavier
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> > > >common
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> > >with
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> > >kept
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
> >later
> >
> >
> > > > > > periods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
> > >number
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >of
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
> >more
> >
> > >
> > > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
>
> > > >Second
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
> >fewer
> >
> > >
> > > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase,
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase,
>
> > >and
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
> >during
> >
> > >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> > >will
> > >
> > > >be
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >no
> > > > > >
> > > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
> >phase
> >
> > >
> > > >for
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
> > >found
> > >
> > > >at
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> >
> > > > >largely
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have
> >
> > >in
> > >
> > >
> > > > >each
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one,
> >two
> >
> > >or
> > >
> > > >a
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
> >100%
> >
> > >
> > > >is
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > > > moments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> >
> > > > >losses
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
> >probably
> >
> > >
> > > >be
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
> >survive
> >
> > >
> > > >any
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > morale test taken during the
> >subsequentÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ end of turn
> >
> > >phase.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
> >Scots
> >
> >
> > > > >though
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
>
> > > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> >
> > > > >typical
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
> >reasoning
> >
> > >
> > > > >here?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> >
> > > > >typical
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> >
> > > > >aren't
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> > >pike
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> > >somewhat?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates
> >
> > >are
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
> > >other
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
>
> > > >those
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in
> >
> > >the
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
> >them
> >
> > >
> > > >and
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> >
> > > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
> >average
> >
> > >
> > > > >rated
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> > > >mounted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
> >firing
> >
> > >
> > > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
> > >melee
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > itself?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > > > >movement
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
> > >charge
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do
>
> > >you
> > >
> > > >go
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
>
> > > > >charge?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had
> >2
> >
> > >1
> > >
> > >
> > > > >pdr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit
> >only
> >
> >
> > > > >takes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >
> > > >light
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally
>
> > >but
> > >
> > > >we
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and
> >it
> >
> >
> > > >went
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> > >local
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> > > rules!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1824 From: "scoted01" <edharding@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
scoted01
Send Email Send Email
 
My testing has been closing the attacker to within 75 paces (effective fire
range), stopping, both sides firing for a turn, next turn the charge is
declared, so I believe we are doing the process correctly. Defender won't stand
to the charge but will counter charge just fine.

I'm fine with the formation change to hedgehog, just thinking others might not
realize this is what you have to do to protect yourself,

cheers,

Ed


--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> I think the issue seems to be how to interpret the distance charged, and from
> where the charge actually begins.
>
> Clearly there is an opportunity for game play, where a player moves his
> attacking unit as close as possible before declaring a charge, say 75 paces -
> then during the charge phase, the input would be 75 paces, and during the fire
> phase the defensive fire is limited due to the short distance. This is not the
> intent, and would only be correct if the attacker had halted at 75 paces,
> engaged in a limited firefight, and then in a subsequent turn elected to
charge,
> or appeared from behind a terrain feature and had only been visible for 75
> paces. Therefore if the unit has come from a distance, without halting, and
the
> charge is simply declared from 75 paces, this is not acceptable and is
> incorrect. I'm at the office now, and don't remember the exact wording on
screen
> during the charge phase, but I believe it has something to do with charge
> distance from when charge is visible. Therefore, you could, and should, input
> the distance from where the unit began it's advance - and not 75 paces [from
> when it was declared]. If this distance can't be accurately remembered or
> measured, then for infantry, inputting the maximum charge distance would be
> appropriate. I think that gets over the issue of defensive fire from charges
> declared close in.
>
> Forming square or hedgehog was, from my understanding, the only formation for
> defense against a mounted attack - the musketeers simply had no way of
> effectively defending themselves in such a situation, other than forming
around
> or within the protection of the pikemen. I think what you describe is
> effectively the formation of the hedgehog, where the pike defend the
musketeers
> - but it did entail movement of the two wings, and this is when the unit is
most
> vulnerable, and as a result should be considered as a formation change.
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:35:21 AM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>
> Maybe you need to compose a tatical guidelines section in the manual letting
> people know the best way to run units? I do see the same behaviour with the
ECW
> OB that comes with the game, easier to get the units to counter charge than to
> stand against a charge starting from in close. I've also experimented with
foot
> vs horse and unless the horse are charging from a long distance, 400+ paces,
the
> foot should always try to form square around the pikes as the shot will never
> stop the horse, good thing to know as most pike and shot folks might  be like
me
> and assume the pike step forward to take the charge and the shot fall back
> around the pike automatically,
>
> cheers
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > Every situation will be different - and no it is not the intent of the
system
>
> > that the only defense against charging foot is to countercharge - I could
run a
> >
> > hundred tests, and come up with situations where the defending unit will
stand
>
> > and halt the attackers. The fact that your units seem to not want to stand
> >seems
> >
> > to suggest that their best defense would be to countercharge - that's fine,
but
> >
> > it's not the only defense, it's simply one defense, and the one that seems
best
> >
> > suited to the troop types you've created.
> >
> >
> > Remember, if one side has attack orders and the other defend, the defending
> >unit
> >
> > that wants to countercharge must have an attached officer, otherwise the
unit
> > commander will probably not display enough initiative to countercharge.
> >
> > All the best
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:22:40 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> > Â
> > understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before
contact
> > and break?
> >
> >
> > It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier
for a
> >
> > unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests now just to see and
the
> >
> > units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I
even
> > had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its
counter
> > charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a
> >combat
> >
> >
> > > will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> > > outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face
> >away
> >
> > >
> > > from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's
attacker
>
> > > [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> > > To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible
> >morale
> >
> > >
> > > advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> > > advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to
stand
>
> > >and
> > >
> > > hold it's position.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to
> > >receive
> > >
> > > it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit
> >but
> >
> >
> > > I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as
part
> >of
> >
> >
> > > the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> > > breaking and falling back facing away,
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > > > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the
units
> >was
> >
> > >
> > > > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the
further
> >
> > > > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive
fire
> >-
> >
> >
> > > >but
> > > >
> > > > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> > > >limited.
> > > >
> > > > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required
to
> > > >'stop'
> > > >
> > > > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in
line
> > >with
> > >
> > >
> > > > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> > > variables.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ -
they are always
> >greatly
> >
> > >
> > > > appreciated
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> > > >
> > > > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance
for
> > >units
> > >
> > > >
> > > > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a
fairly
> > >tight
> > >
> > > >
> > > > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot
units
>
> > >into
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like
> >that
> >
> > >
> > > > formation isn't available to them.
> > > >
> > > > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even
if
> > >they
> > >
> > >
> > > > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight
it
> >
> > > > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where
an
> > >Irish
> > >
> > > >
> > > > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge
> >(option
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them
and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
> > >morale
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
> > >against
> > >
> > > >
> > > > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did
find
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand
and
>
> > > >fire?
> > > >
> > > > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas
it
>
> > >will
> > >
> > > >
> > > > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a
unit
> >
> > > > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect
> >does
> >
> > >
> > > > seem OK if that was your intention.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same
> >thing
> >
> >
> > > > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > > > addition to your set,
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear
periods
> >[I
> >
> >
> > > >was
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get
your
> > >point
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > about the lack of supports............
> > > > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't
consider
> >
> > > >them
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up
> >fight.
> >
> > >
> > > > >They
> > > > >
> > > > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we
play
> >
> > >ACW
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in
> >column.
> >
> >
> > > > >We'll
> > > > >
> > > > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of
them
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > battles in Scotland!
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as
cavalry
> >
> > >so
> > >
> > >
> > > > > they are allowed to charge?
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in
the
> > >later
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > > > formations.
> > > > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150
> >paces,
> >
> > >
> > > >it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in
an
> > > >attempt
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat,
> >and
> >
> >
> > > >pass
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can
attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > >
> > > > >stop
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> > > >comfortable
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300
paces,
> >it
> >
> >
> > > >will
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
> > >given
> > >
> > > >up
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> > > >distance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is
to
> > >pass
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> > > >defending
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not
> > >possible,ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ and
> > >
> > > >there
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > > >no
> > > > > >
> > > > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit
will
>
> > > > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the
charge
> > > >wasn't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > stopped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result
of
> > > >failing
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150
paces
> >or
> >
> >
> > > >300
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line
move.
> >We
> >
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as
> >the
> >
> >
> > > >foot
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement
was
> > > >looser,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >as
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the
> >column
> >
> > >
> > > > >moves
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with
50
> > >men),
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >just
> > > > > >
> > > > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > >for
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was
non-cadenced
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > > > >frequent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in
speed.
>
> > >The
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >heavier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace
movement
> >
> > > > >common
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to
close
> >
> > > >with
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are
still
> >
> > > >kept
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
> > >later
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > periods.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by
a
>
> > > >number
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >of
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better
than
>
> > >more
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to
> >expect.
> >
> >
> > > > >Second
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result
in
> > >fewer
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire
> >phase,
> >
> > >
> > > >it
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn
> >phase,
> >
> >
> > > >and
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
> > >during
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so
there
> >
> > > >will
> > > >
> > > > >be
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >no
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the
next
> > >phase
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >for
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will
be
>
> > > >found
> > > >
> > > > >at
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire
will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > > > >largely
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as
> >opposed
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you
> >have
> >
> > >
> > > >in
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >each
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents,
one,
>
> > >two
> > >
> > > >or
> > > >
> > > > >a
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also
the
> >
> > > > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing
at
>
> > >100%
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the
important
>
> > > > > moments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have
been
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > >losses
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
> > >probably
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >be
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
> > >survive
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >any
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > morale test taken during the
> > >subsequentÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'â€
'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€\
 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> >end of turn
> >
> > >
> > > >phase.
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'â€
'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€\
 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'â€
'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€\
 'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
> > >Scots
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >though
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a
> >few
> >
> >
> > > > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal
and
> >575
> >
> > >
> > > > > >typical
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
> > >reasoning
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods,
> >where
> >
> > >
> > > > > >typical
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed
> >troops
> >
> > >
> > > > > >aren't
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to
18'
> >
> > > >pike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> > > >somewhat?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move
> >rates
> >
> > >
> > > >are
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as
the
>
> > > >other
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in
> >charge
> >
> >
> > > > >those
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired
where
> >in
> >
> > >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot
of
>
> > >them
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >and
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even
true
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
> > >average
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >rated
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all.
Are
>
> > > > >mounted
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
> > >firing
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into
the
>
> > > >melee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > itself?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the
next
> >
> > > > > >movement
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow
all
>
> > > >charge
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring
unit
> >
> > >in
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both
cases
> >do
> >
> >
> > > >you
> > > >
> > > > >go
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or
fire
> >on
> >
> >
> > > > > >charge?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We
> >had
> >
> > >2
> > >
> > > >1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >pdr
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer
unit
> > >only
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >takes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes
> >(finest
> >
> > >
> > > > >light
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached
> >rally
> >
> >
> > > >but
> > > >
> > > > >we
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again
and
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > >
> > > > >went
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at
the
> >
> > > >local
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on
the
>
> > > > rules!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#1825 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Ed,
In the situation you describe, I think it's acceptable that the defending unit wouldn't necessarily stand before a charge - and in that situation the best defense probably would be the countercharge. There are modifiers in place to make it more difficult to charge from a halted situation [did unit advance in previous turn].

All the best
Nigel



From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 12:24:27 PM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

My testing has been closing the attacker to within 75 paces (effective fire range), stopping, both sides firing for a turn, next turn the charge is declared, so I believe we are doing the process correctly. Defender won't stand to the charge but will counter charge just fine.

I'm fine with the formation change to hedgehog, just thinking others might not realize this is what you have to do to protect yourself,

cheers,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> I think the issue seems to be how to interpret the distance charged, and from
> where the charge actually begins.
>
> Clearly there is an opportunity for game play, where a player moves his
> attacking unit as close as possible before declaring a charge, say 75 paces -
> then during the charge phase, the input would be 75 paces, and during the fire
> phase the defensive fire is limited due to the short distance. This is not the
> intent, and would only be correct if the attacker had halted at 75 paces,
> engaged in a limited firefight, and then in a subsequent turn elected to charge,
> or appeared from behind a terrain feature and had only been visible for 75
> paces. Therefore if the unit has come from a distance, without halting, and the
> charge is simply declared from 75 paces, this is not acceptable and is
> incorrect. I'm at the office now, and don't remember the exact wording on screen
> during the charge phase, but I believe it has something to do with charge
> distance from when charge is visible. Therefore, you could, and should, input
> the distance from where the unit began it's advance - and not 75 paces [from
> when it was declared]. If this distance can't be accurately remembered or
> measured, then for infantry, inputting the maximum charge distance would be
> appropriate. I think that gets over the issue of defensive fire from charges
> declared close in.
>
> Forming square or hedgehog was, from my understanding, the only formation for
> defense against a mounted attack - the musketeers simply had no way of
> effectively defending themselves in such a situation, other than forming around
> or within the protection of the pikemen. I think what you describe is
> effectively the formation of the hedgehog, where the pike defend the musketeers
> - but it did entail movement of the two wings, and this is when the unit is most
> vulnerable, and as a result should be considered as a formation change.
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: scoted01 <edharding@...>
> To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:35:21 AM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>
> Maybe you need to compose a tatical guidelines section in the manual letting
> people know the best way to run units? I do see the same behaviour with the ECW
> OB that comes with the game, easier to get the units to counter charge than to
> stand against a charge starting from in close. I've also experimented with foot
> vs horse and unless the horse are charging from a long distance, 400+ paces, the
> foot should always try to form square around the pikes as the shot will never
> stop the horse, good thing to know as most pike and shot folks might be like me
> and assume the pike step forward to take the charge and the shot fall back
> around the pike automatically,
>
> cheers
>
> Ed
>
> --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > Every situation will be different - and no it is not the intent of the system
>
> > that the only defense against charging foot is to countercharge - I could run a
> >
> > hundred tests, and come up with situations where the defending unit will stand
>
> > and halt the attackers. The fact that your units seem to not want to stand
> >seems
> >
> > to suggest that their best defense would be to countercharge - that's fine, but
> >
> > it's not the only defense, it's simply one defense, and the one that seems best
> >
> > suited to the troop types you've created.
> >
> >
> > Remember, if one side has attack orders and the other defend, the defending
> >unit
> >
> > that wants to countercharge must have an attached officer, otherwise the unit
> > commander will probably not display enough initiative to countercharge.
> >
> > All the best
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:22:40 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> > Â
> > understand, but also had that charging Irish unit issuing fire before contact
> > and break?
> >
> >
> > It seems like its too easy to break against a charge? Should it be easier for a
> >
> > unit to counter charge vs stand? I've run several tests now just to see and the
> >
> > units always counter charge but never stand, either 150 or 300 retire. I even
> > had the covenanters win one of the counter charge engagements! so its counter
> > charge at close range for me every time, is that what you intended?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > If the unit withdraws 150 paces, it will remain facing the threat and a
> >combat
> >
> >
> > > will probably result [based upon the withdrawing unit not being capable of
> > > outrunning the attacker]. If the unit retires 300 paces, then it will face
> >away
> >
> > >
> > > from the threat - hopefully this distance is enough to outpace it's attacker
>
> > > [sometimes it won't be, and the unit will fight as attacked in the rear].
> > > To successfully defend a position, either a unit must have a perceptible
> >morale
> >
> > >
> > > advantage or be defending a linear obstacle - otherwise the threat of an
> > > advancing pike block may be enough to break the resolve of the unit to stand
>
> > >and
> > >
> > > hold it's position.
> > >
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 12:56:02 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to
> > >receive
> > >
> > > it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit
> >but
> >
> >
> > > I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part
> >of
> >
> >
> > > the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit
> > > breaking and falling back facing away,
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> > > > tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units
> >was
> >
> > >
> > > > severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> >
> > > > distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire
> >-
> >
> >
> > > >but
> > > >
> > > > the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely
> > > >limited.
> > > >
> > > > It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to
> > > >'stop'
> > > >
> > > > a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line
> > >with
> > >
> > >
> > > > what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many
> > > variables.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all your comments and suggestions ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ - they are always
> >greatly
> >
> > >
> > > > appreciated
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
> > > >
> > > > We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for
> > >units
> > >
> > > >
> > > > with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly
> > >tight
> > >
> > > >
> > > > formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units
>
> > >into
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like
> >that
> >
> > >
> > > > formation isn't available to them.
> > > >
> > > > It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if
> > >they
> > >
> > >
> > > > have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> >
> > > > seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an
> > >Irish
> > >
> > > >
> > > > unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge
> >(option
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good
> > >morale
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold
> > >against
> > >
> > > >
> > > > a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and
>
> > > >fire?
> > > >
> > > > The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it
>
> > >will
> > >
> > > >
> > > > retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> >
> > > > charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect
> >does
> >
> > >
> > > > seem OK if that was your intention.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same
> >thing
> >
> >
> > > > with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> > > > addition to your set,
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed,
> > > > > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods
> >[I
> >
> >
> > > >was
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your
> > >point
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > about the lack of supports............
> > > > > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider
> >
> > > >them
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up
> >fight.
> >
> > >
> > > > >They
> > > > >
> > > > > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordered infantry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play
> >
> > >ACW
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in
> >column.
> >
> >
> > > > >We'll
> > > > >
> > > > > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them
> >in
> >
> >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > battles in Scotland!
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry
> >
> > >so
> > >
> > >
> > > > > they are allowed to charge?
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the
> > >later
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> > > > formations.
> > > > > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150
> >paces,
> >
> > >
> > > >it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an
> > > >attempt
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat,
> >and
> >
> >
> > > >pass
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > >
> > > > >stop
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel
> > > >comfortable
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces,
> >it
> >
> >
> > > >will
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has
> > >given
> > >
> > > >up
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put
> > > >distance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > between itself and the threat.
> > > > > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/retiring unit is to
> > >pass
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new
> > > >defending
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not
> > >possible,ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ and
> > >
> > > >there
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > > >no
> > > > > >
> > > > > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
>
> > > > > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge
> > > >wasn't
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > stopped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of
> > > >failing
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces
> >or
> >
> >
> > > >300
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move.
> >We
> >
> >
> > > >just
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as
> >the
> >
> >
> > > >foot
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was
> > > >looser,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >as
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the
> >column
> >
> > >
> > > > >moves
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50
> > >men),
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >just
> > > > > >
> > > > > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed,
> > > > > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > >for
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > > > >frequent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed.
>
> > >The
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >heavier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >
> > > > >common
> > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close
> >
> > > >with
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still
> >
> > > >kept
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in
> > >later
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > periods.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a
>
> > > >number
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >of
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than
>
> > >more
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to
> >expect.
> >
> >
> > > > >Second
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in
> > >fewer
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire
> >phase,
> >
> > >
> > > >it
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn
> >phase,
> >
> >
> > > >and
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement
> > >during
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there
> >
> > > >will
> > > >
> > > > >be
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >no
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next
> > >phase
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >for
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be
>
> > > >found
> > > >
> > > > >at
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > > > >largely
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as
> >opposed
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you
> >have
> >
> > >
> > > >in
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >each
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one,
>
> > >two
> > >
> > > >or
> > > >
> > > > >a
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> >
> > > > > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at
>
> > >100%
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >is
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
>
> > > > > moments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > >losses
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would
> > >probably
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >be
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly
> > >survive
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >any
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > morale test taken during the
> > >subsequentÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> >end of turn
> >
> > >
> > > >phase.
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > > > > To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > > > Nigel,
> > > > > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist
> > >Scots
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >though
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a
> >few
> >
> >
> > > > > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and
> >575
> >
> > >
> > > > > >typical
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your
> > >reasoning
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods,
> >where
> >
> > >
> > > > > >typical
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed
> >troops
> >
> > >
> > > > > >aren't
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18'
> >
> > > >pike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate
> > > >somewhat?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move
> >rates
> >
> > >
> > > >are
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the
>
> > > >other
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in
> >charge
> >
> >
> > > > >those
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where
> >in
> >
> > >
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of
>
> > >them
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >and
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some
> > >average
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >rated
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
>
> > > > >mounted
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be
> > >firing
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the
>
> > > >melee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > itself?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> >
> > > > > >movement
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all
>
> > > >charge
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit
> >
> > >in
> > >
> > >
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases
> >do
> >
> >
> > > >you
> > > >
> > > > >go
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire
> >on
> >
> >
> > > > > >charge?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We
> >had
> >
> > >2
> > >
> > > >1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >pdr
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit
> > >only
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >takes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes
> >(finest
> >
> > >
> > > > >light
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached
> >rally
> >
> >
> > > >but
> > > >
> > > > >we
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and
> >
> > >it
> > >
> > >
> > > > >went
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the
> >
> > > >local
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
>
> > > > rules!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1826 From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
gonatas101
Send Email Send Email
 
I see.

I guess in your previous editions I was impressed that ACW troops were much less likely to close without an officer whereas SYW types seemed more fatalistic and less willing to baulk.

In my very limited experience with the P & S set in Ed's games, it seems that unwillingness to stand is more a factor than unwillingness to close.

This makes sense in that firepower seems to be a big factor in keeping troops from closing in all the eras. I just wonder if you are giving the pike it's due as a deterrent to close action. After all the continued to survive because of the poor firepower that you admirably represent.

It's hard to get my head around how charges seem easy and always seem to go while it's the other side that seems to run frequently.

Mark Huml

On Aug 1, 2010, at 4:34 PM, npmarsh@... wrote:

 

Mark,
The system defintely considers the pike both as an offensive and defensive weapon - but it should be understood that during the charge to contact the system considers the comparative morale status of opposing units much more than it does any other factor. So during the charge to contact, if one side is perceptively more 'confident' it will undoubtedly prevail in any confrontation, where all other circumstances are equal.
 
During this period there was far less opportunity to 'soften up' an opponent, either through artillery or as in 19th century engagements skirmish fire, or destructively demolish an opponent at close range with firepower. Under these conditions morale would play a much more important role in the final moments before actual contact was made. The system also assumes that the actual physical clash of two forces was very unlikely, with one side or the other giving way before the moment of impact. Any casualties between foot units that might occur in the open, are as a result of stragglers being unable to avoid a pike or the clubing action of a musketeer - it was probably very likely that pikemen would end up falling over in the general crush and at that point their fate would be sealed.
 
Nigel
 

 


From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@ameritech.net>
To: carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:33:49 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Yes. It does seem that the pike have been forgotten in all this. Even if actual HTH is a rarity in period the pike would be a factor in whether the enemy actually closes or not?


From: scoted01 <edharding@comcast. net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:56:02 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: scoted01 <edharding@.. .>
> To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports.... ........
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordere d infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/ retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1827 From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
gonatas101
Send Email Send Email
 
After all THEY (pikes) continued to survive because of the poor firepower that you admirably represent.


From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
To: "carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com" <carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 12:08:15 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

I see.

I guess in your previous editions I was impressed that ACW troops were much less likely to close without an officer whereas SYW types seemed more fatalistic and less willing to baulk.

In my very limited experience with the P & S set in Ed's games, it seems that unwillingness to stand is more a factor than unwillingness to close.

This makes sense in that firepower seems to be a big factor in keeping troops from closing in all the eras. I just wonder if you are giving the pike it's due as a deterrent to close action. After all the continued to survive because of the poor firepower that you admirably represent.

It's hard to get my head around how charges seem easy and always seem to go while it's the other side that seems to run frequently.

Mark Huml

On Aug 1, 2010, at 4:34 PM, npmarsh@att. net wrote:

 

Mark,
The system defintely considers the pike both as an offensive and defensive weapon - but it should be understood that during the charge to contact the system considers the comparative morale status of opposing units much more than it does any other factor. So during the charge to contact, if one side is perceptively more 'confident' it will undoubtedly prevail in any confrontation, where all other circumstances are equal.
 
During this period there was far less opportunity to 'soften up' an opponent, either through artillery or as in 19th century engagements skirmish fire, or destructively demolish an opponent at close range with firepower. Under these conditions morale would play a much more important role in the final moments before actual contact was made. The system also assumes that the actual physical clash of two forces was very unlikely, with one side or the other giving way before the moment of impact. Any casualties between foot units that might occur in the open, are as a result of stragglers being unable to avoid a pike or the clubing action of a musketeer - it was probably very likely that pikemen would end up falling over in the general crush and at that point their fate would be sealed.
 
Nigel
 

 


From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@ameritech .net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:33:49 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Yes. It does seem that the pike have been forgotten in all this. Even if actual HTH is a rarity in period the pike would be a factor in whether the enemy actually closes or not?


From: scoted01 <edharding@comcast. net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:56:02 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: scoted01 <edharding@.. .>
> To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports.... ........
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordere d infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/ retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1828 From: npmarsh@...
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2010 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Re: ECW Observations and Questions
npmarsh@att.net
Send Email Send Email
 
Mark,
Stopping the charge has much more to do with the distance at which the charge begins - if the charge starts at very close range, say 75 paces, the defenders are very unlikely to stand. They simply didn't have the time to pour in enough lead to stop the aggressors. Warfare in the pike and shot and horse and musket periods, in my opinion, is more about threat that actual hand to hand combat. It's a matter of who shows the most resolve to either attack or stand that will define who ultimately wins or loses. In the example above, the defenders perceive the resolve of the attackers [who charge] as greater than their own resolve to stand, and as they are unable to do enough damage to stop them, they will withdraw or break.
I have not made any major changes to the manner charge declarations are resolved - the same modifiers are in place - except fewer physical casualties will have the same effect as higher casualties in later periods. One factor that might come into play is that lower grade troops will inevitably charge more consistently. The reason for this is the fact that they have less expectation of the resultant danger. Of course they tend to be more brittle and react more quickly to negative results, but when it comes to charges, they are more likely to charge than say a veteran unit - simply because they don't know any better.

All the best
Nigel



From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@...>
To: "carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com" <carnageandglory2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 1:08:15 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

I see.

I guess in your previous editions I was impressed that ACW troops were much less likely to close without an officer whereas SYW types seemed more fatalistic and less willing to baulk.

In my very limited experience with the P & S set in Ed's games, it seems that unwillingness to stand is more a factor than unwillingness to close.

This makes sense in that firepower seems to be a big factor in keeping troops from closing in all the eras. I just wonder if you are giving the pike it's due as a deterrent to close action. After all the continued to survive because of the poor firepower that you admirably represent.

It's hard to get my head around how charges seem easy and always seem to go while it's the other side that seems to run frequently.

Mark Huml

On Aug 1, 2010, at 4:34 PM, npmarsh@att. net wrote:

 

Mark,
The system defintely considers the pike both as an offensive and defensive weapon - but it should be understood that during the charge to contact the system considers the comparative morale status of opposing units much more than it does any other factor. So during the charge to contact, if one side is perceptively more 'confident' it will undoubtedly prevail in any confrontation, where all other circumstances are equal.
 
During this period there was far less opportunity to 'soften up' an opponent, either through artillery or as in 19th century engagements skirmish fire, or destructively demolish an opponent at close range with firepower. Under these conditions morale would play a much more important role in the final moments before actual contact was made. The system also assumes that the actual physical clash of two forces was very unlikely, with one side or the other giving way before the moment of impact. Any casualties between foot units that might occur in the open, are as a result of stragglers being unable to avoid a pike or the clubing action of a musketeer - it was probably very likely that pikemen would end up falling over in the general crush and at that point their fate would be sealed.
 
Nigel
 

 


From: Mark Huml <a_gonatas@ameritech .net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 1:33:49 PM
Subject: Re: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Yes. It does seem that the pike have been forgotten in all this. Even if actual HTH is a rarity in period the pike would be a factor in whether the enemy actually closes or not?


From: scoted01 <edharding@comcast. net>
To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:56:02 AM
Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions

 

Not sure I'm as worried about stopping the charge more about standing to receive it. I can certainly see the fire of the time wouldn't stop a charging unit but I'm sure the troops of the period knew that so hence the pike block as part of the unit? I'd expect more push of pike melees rather than the whole unit breaking and falling back facing away,

Ed

--- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@... wrote:
>
> Ed,
> Due to the poor fire discipline and basic inadequacy of the firearms and
> tactical doctrines in place at the time, the fire potential for the units was
> severely restricted [when compared to later periods]. Obviously the further
> distance a charging unit covers then the more potential for defensive fire - but
> the idea of a charge being stopped by musket fire only will be severely limited.
> It was, however, my intent to reduce the number of casualties required to 'stop'
> a charge, so I will have to check the code to ensure that this is in line with
> what the intent was - obviously it's a fine balance affected by many variables.
>
> Thank you for all your comments and suggestions  - they are always greatly
> appreciated
>
> All the best
> Nigel
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: scoted01 <edharding@.. .>
> To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 12:08:38 PM
> Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
>
>  
> So we did another game last night, another Montrose victory.
>
> We still are having problems accepting the 450 pace movement distance for units
> with Pike in them, seems excesive for troops meant to be keeping a fairly tight
> formation while carrying an 18" pike. We tried to form the pike/shot units into
> Tercio formation so they would get a slower movement rate but seems like that
> formation isn't available to them.
>
> It does appear troops don't stand to close in charges very often, even if they
> have pike in them, considering it was a pikeman's job to stand and fight it
> seems a bit too easy to have them run. We also had the situation where an Irish
> unit (high ratings) choose to fire before contact during it's charge (option to
> fire before closing) against a foot unit that was itself charging them and the
> Irish unit ended up running away even though it was charging and in good morale
> and fatigue with officer and support! Just shows how hard it is to hold against
> a charge, doesn't it seem a little off?
>
> Not sure if this was your intention for Push of Pike but what we did find is
> it's better to issue a charge react with a foot unit than try to stand and fire?
> The charged foot unit seems to be able to issue a charge itself whereas it will
> retire 300 paces trying to stand and fire. This is not the case with a unit
> charged from a long distance away, better to stand and fire. This effect does
> seem OK if that was your intention.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong with all these observations, (think we did the same thing
> with the SYW set when we first got them) we are enjoying the rules great
> addition to your set,
>
> Ed
> --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > It had occurred to me that your experience was more with linear periods [I was
>
> > thinking SYW], when obviously columns were less prevalent. And get your point
> > about the lack of supports.... ........
> > Mounted dragoons are capable of charging, but the system doesn't consider them
>
> > as having the same qualities as other 'battle' cavalry in a stand up fight.
> >They
> >
> > could of course do harm against already disrupted/disordere d infantry.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 12:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> >
> >
> > I think my problem is I haven't played the Napoleonic set enough, we play ACW
> > and SYW most of the time which don't have many people attacking in column.
> >We'll
> >
> > get used to it. Supporting units would be nice but not too many of them in the
>
> > battles in Scotland!
> >
> > One thing on my first questions, do you count mounted Dragoons as cavalry so
> > they are allowed to charge?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > The distances are equal to the retrograde movement for columns in the later
> > > periods, in fact the distances are equal for both line and column
> formations.
> > > What's happening here is the following - if the unit withdraws 150 paces, it
>
> > > will still be facing the threat, it is essentially backstepping in an attempt
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > avoid contact, simply to put distance between itself and the threat, and pass
> >
> > > through a friendly supporting unit, in order that that unit can attempt to
> >stop
> >
> > >
> > > the charge. The withdrawing unit is not broken - but doesn't feel comfortable
> >
> > > enough to stop the charge on it's own. If the unit retires 300 paces, it will
> >
> > > face away from the threat - this unit is essentially broken, and has given up
> >
> > > all attempts to confront the threat - it's simply attempting to put distance
>
> > > between itself and the threat.
> > > In both cases the best result for the withdrawing/ retiring unit is to pass
> > > through a friendly unit in order that that new unit becomes the new defending
> >
> > > unit. So try to have supporting units, if this is not possible, and there
> >is
> >
> > >no
> > >
> > > supporting unit, I think it's fair to accept that a charging unit will
> > > eventually contact the original defending unit - after all the charge wasn't
>
> > > stopped.
> > >
> > > The charge distance for foot is actually 525 paces, not 575.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:04:32 PM
> > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] Re: ECW Observations and Questions
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Nigel,
> > > thanks for the quick response, clears up quite a bit.
> > >
> > > Regarding the move distance, the retrograde movement is the result of failing
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > hold a charge, it seems to be the same as the other periods 150 paces or 300
>
> > > paces which is not based on column movement but equals the line move. We just
> >
> > > noticed that every time that happened the unit was inevitably hit as the foot
> >
> > > charge distance was 575 paces. Wouldn't it make sense if movement was looser,
> >
> > >as
> > >
> > > you mention, to make the compulsory retrograde movements match the column
> >moves
> >
> > >
> > > 225 paces and 450 paces?
> > >
> > >
> > > On the artillery, I only had 2 actual Fframes firing (1 model with 50 men),
> > >just
> > >
> > > seems high compared to the musket fire.
> > >
> > > Sure I'll run another game this week
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > --- In carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com, npmarsh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed,
> > > > Let me try to respond to your questions:
> > > > 1. Movement - The movement is the equivalent to a normal column movement
> >for
> >
> >
> > > > later periods. My contention was that the movement was non-cadenced and
> > > >frequent
> > > >
> > > > realignments being unnecessary would result in an increase in speed. The
> > > >heavier
> > > >
> > > > Tercio formations however are limited to the slower 300 pace movement
> >common
> >
> > >to
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formations in later periods. Once a commitment was made to close with
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > enemy that's exactly what they do. The retrograde movements are still kept
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > same, again to match the pace of movement of a column formation in later
> > > > periods.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Charges - the frequency of effective charges may be affected by a number
> >
> > >of
> > >
> > >
> > > > criteria. Firstly lower grade troops will tend to charge better than more
> > > > veteran troops [the concept being that they don't know what to expect.
> >Second
> >
> > >
> > > > the ineffectiveness of the defensive fire will ultimately result in fewer
> > > > charges being stopped before contact.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Trotter Cavalry - they shoudl attempt to fire during the fire phase, it
> >is
> >
> > >
> > > > not incorporated into the melee phase.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Pursuit - the pursuit will be advised during the end of turn phase, and
>
> > >the
> > >
> > >
> > > > movement should take place at that time, and replaces the movement during
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > > following phase. It should be treated as a continuous hack - so there will
> >be
> >
> > >
> > > >no
> > > >
> > > > defensive or offensive fire and essentially combat will be the next phase
> >for
> >
> > >
> > > > the pursued and pursuers [all other circumstances being equal].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Artillery fire - the most destructive fire from artillery will be found
> >at
> >
> > >
> > > > closer hail shot or canister ranges - at longer ranges the fire will be
> > >largely
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ineffective. The artillery are essentially defensive weapons as opposed to
>
> > > > offensive weapons in this respect. I'm not sure how many tubes you have in
>
> > >each
> > >
> > > >
> > > > battery, but reducing the number, so that each unit represents, one, two or
> >a
> >
> > >
> > > > maximum of three pieces, will help reduce the effectiveness. Also the
> > > > realization that ammunition is fairly short will mean that firing at 100%
> >is
> >
> >
> > > > done at a premium, to ensure that ammo is available at the important
> > moments.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rally - the rally request for the unit with 105% could have been for
> > >losses
> > >
> > >
> > > > incurred or fatigue levels. But at that level of morale it would probably
> >be
> >
> >
> > > > better to save the officers efforts, as the unit will undoubtedly survive
> >any
> >
> > >
> > > > morale test taken during the subsequentÃÆ'‚Â end of turn phase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > > From: scoted01 <edharding@>
> > > > To: carnageandglory2@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 12:33:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [carnageandglory2] ECW Observations and Questions
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > Nigel,
> > > > Ran my first game last night, result was a victory to the Royalist Scots
> > >though
> > >
> > > >
> > > > they took heavy losses. Seemed to go fairly well but we did have a few
> > > > observations and questions that we'd appreciate your insight to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, foot movement distance seems very high, 450 paces normal and 575
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in charge. That covers a lot of the table. Can you explain your reasoning
> > >here?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know they would be looser formations than in the later periods, where
> > >typical
> > >
> > > >
> > > > line formation moves are 300 paces, but surprised the pike armed troops
> > >aren't
> > >
> > >
> > > > reducing the movement rates? Would have thought carrying a 16' to 18' pike
>
> > > > around trying to stay in formation restricted your movement rate somewhat?
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also in regards to the above movement rate, typical reaction move rates are
> >
> > > > still 150 pace withdraw and 300 pace retire which is the same as the other
>
> > > > periods but we found because of the large foot movement rate in charge
> >those
> >
> >
> > > > units inevitably got hit in the back anyway after they retired where in the
> >
> > > > later periods this tends to not happen a lot?
> > > >
> > > > Second, charges seemed easier than in later periods, we did a lot of them
> >and
> >
> > >
> > > > not one failed unless the unit was too fatigued. This was even true for
> > > > unsupported levy highlanders I had rated as raw militia, and some average
> > >rated
> > >
> > > >
> > > > mounted Dragoons, which I expected not to want to charge at all. Are
> >mounted
> >
> >
> > > > dragoons classed as cavalry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, I wasn't sure if when charging Trotter cavalry we should be firing
> > > > pistols in the fire phase prior to contact or is that built into the melee
>
> > > > itself?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forth, how is pursuit done? Do you wait and move the unit in the next
> > >movement
> > >
> > >
> > > > turn? And if so do you do it just as a normal charge move follow all charge
> >
> > > > procedures? Or do you just move the unit to contact the retiring unit in
> >the
> >
> >
> > > > rally phase, in effect following on the retired unit. In both cases do you
> >go
> >
> > >
> > > > straight to melee or allow the pursued unit to charge react or fire on
> > >charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifth, artillery fire seems kind of devastating for the period. We had 2 1
>
> > >pdr
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fframes taking 18-19 casualties while a full 500 man musketeer unit only
> > >takes
> > >
> > >
> > > > 25-30 casualties. Seems a bit much, though I do love my Fframes (finest
> >light
> >
> > >
> > > > artillery in Europe:) ).
> > > >
> > > > Sixth, I like the visibility to the rally phase officer attached rally but
> >we
> >
> > >
> > > > did have a unit that was a morale of 105% ask to be rallied again and it
> >went
> >
> > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > > 115%, is that correct? It was horse and had just won a melee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to running another game, think I'll run a game at the local
> >
> > > > upcoming Legends of the Fall convention in November. Nice job on the
> rules!
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


#1829 From: "paul689570" <paulsmith116@...>
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:24 pm
Subject: Moving Officers
paul689570
Send Email Send Email
 
Can someone please clarify the moving of officers for me particularly during the
`rally phase'?

Presumably during the normal movement phase officers can move up to the maximum
of their movement allowance as stated on the movement table, including attaching
and detaching from units as necessary. But does their movement allowance apply
in the rally phase? Are they only allowed to move only the balance of any unused
movement left over from the movement phase? Can they move from unit to unit that
requires rallying regardless of the distance actually covered? How does the
`Command radius matrix' (or `zone of influence') impact on all of this? Can they
move from unit to unit in the rallying phase or do they have to stay with a unit
that they successfully rally (I realise that Nigel is updating the manuals at
the moment but the current manuals seem a bit contradictory to me on this one).
Help!

Paul

#1830 From: "paul689570" <paulsmith116@...>
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 8:29 pm
Subject: Replenishment of Ammunition
paul689570
Send Email Send Email
 
Nigel or someone,

can you please confirm (or otherwise) that a unit will gradually replenish its
ammunition if it ceases firing even if you do not re-allocate it to a supply
officer?

many thanks Paul

Messages 1801 - 1830 of 4513   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help