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?

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

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

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

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

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

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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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
> > >
> >
>

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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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

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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 

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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>