Neil Thomas "One - Hour Wargames" rules: Pike and Shot Review

The Rules.

The rules come in a series of nine, from ancients to WWII.  The fourth set are the Pike and Shot  rules.  NT chose a focus that is a bit more into the continental side of the channel and more in the Renaissance than the ECW, but the rules can be easily adapted for more ECW nuance.  As with all the rules, NT picked four representative unit types, in this case: 

• Infantry [mixed pike and musketeer battalion, ratio not specified], 
• Swordsmen [sword & musket wielding men, armed with small shields, axes and other edged weapons, moving fast and discharging firearms at or just before charging], 
• Reiters [armored, mounted pistoleers, using shooting to weaken an opponent then charging home, much like classical ancient cavalry], and,
• Cavalry [fast-moving sword swinging shock cavalry acting much like medieval knights, even if armed with some pistols, often called gendarmes but cavalier in later periods].  

There is no morale system.  All units have 15 points of casualties they can take and then they are destroyed, being removed from the table immediately.  The casualties represent actual wounded but more fatigue and disorder than anything.  There's no way to remove casualty points [again, easily changed!].

The turn sequence for each side in one Turn is IGO-UGO: 

1. Move [includes moves to contact, aka Charges], 
2. Shooting, 
3. Hand-to-Hand, 
4. Eliminate Units.

Move.  Infantry 6", Swordsmen 8", Reiters 10", Cavalry 12".  Turns on the Unit center, of any amount, are permitted at the beginning and end of the move.  Charges are just a move to contact, with up to a 45 degree turn at the start, none at the end.  However neither Infantry nor Reiters are allowed to charge until out of ammo.  Quite interesting, since this demonstrates a doctrine of closing after the enemy has been somewhat weakened pretty well.  It is all simple, and pretty much forces you to think a turn ahead with your charges. 

Terrain is simple - Woods are only passable by Skirmish, the rest by everyone except for obvious things like rivers and marsh that no one can pass.   Woods are only passable to swordsmen [here representing an auxiliary infantry] and there's a 3" bonus for moving along a road without contacting the enemy.  Mounted cannot stay in a town but may move thru it.

Interpenetration.  No Units may pass thru any others.

Shooting.  Infantry and Reiters only, 45 degrees off front, and 12" range [the pistol range equaling the musket is explained by the evolutions of the Reiters, a rank trotting forward to fire then wheeling back to the main body].  Both may shoot at the end of movement.  Both use a d6 to inflict casualties. Units in woods or town halve the casualties.  When either shoot, they roll a second dice and run out of ammo on a 1-2, so a 33% chance of running out of ammo each turn of firing.  There are no rules to reload [again, easily made for scenario]. 

Hand-to-Hand.  Each side attacks during their turn only.   Infantry and Reiters at 1d6, and Swordsmen and Cavalry at 1d6+2, which makes a huge difference!  They can eliminate a Unit in two turns rolling well.  It takes at least three turns for Infantry and Reiters to eliminate a Unit.  Simple math, interesting results!  

Units defending an obstacle like hillside, woods, town or riverbank, take half casualties. Infantry halve casualties from either mounted Units [representing the pikes], while mounted take half casualties from Swordsmen.

Units may only be attacked by one unit per facing: front, rear, either flank.  Units may turn to face a flank/rear attack if not simultaneously engaged on another facing.  HtH ends with one side being eliminated. 

That's pretty much it!

As already indicated, there's plenty of space to easily add in some modifications for the ECW, the main challenge would be to not foul up the rule system with needless complexity, nor spoil the simplicity with unneeded details.  I can certainly see adding in a "Commanded Shotte" or perhaps "Dragoons" that acts as swordsmen without the melee bonus, but can shoot as well as infantry.  Mounted dragoons would be a waste of time - one would just use a weak cavalry unit instead.  Lots of possibilities, and I definitely want to do some playing with these when I'm done some Units!

4000 Posts! Updates, Neil Thomas Rules

"It is with great pride, pleasure and joy that we acknowledge the visitation of over 4000 guests to this our humble site on the concerns of this great British conflict.

Hooray.  

We do beseech you to return at your earliest opportunity.

Well, it is true that this blog has been often on my mind and rarely under my fingers.  But my gaming time has been limited, resulting in some consolidation of blog material and focus, plus I've been doing some work to observe the 100th anniversary of WWI.  

This blog will expand into the horse and musket era.  Most likely into the American Revolution, or American War of Independence, or whatever it may be called these days. Living in the locations of most of the 1777 campaign has got me thinking about 40mm for that campaign, also. But no decisions made yet.  I just feel that the ECW is the start of horse and musket in terms of rules and mentality rather than just the end of the medieval and renaissance.  Altho If I can be distracted into renaissance it will be here, also!

Recently, I've gotten some new impetus for gaming in general from Neil Thomas and his "One - Hour Wargames" book, and I couldn't resist "Ancient and Medieval Wargaming" either.  The first playtest is finished for the Dark Ages rules in 1HW, and can be found in my medieval blog, "Spear to the Strife" here: 

Spear to the Strife, Medieval Blog

Actually, it is developed into a three-part post, with lots of pics and details.  As well as links to reviews by other NT fans and their blogs and batreps.  Quite good stuff really/!  Is it for you?  Maybe - best to read up and find out!

I've done some upgrades to this site, including adding some great blogs to the list, and changing some of my lists into link-lists to facilitate your visit.  I hope it helps.  

On the 40mm ECW front, I still need to finish cleaning, assembling and gap-filling more 40mm ECW, no doubt about that.  I've a cav unit, and some command, not a lot.  But one needs to get to it to get it done!  I haven't spent much time at the hobby table since our move into a new house, and I need to figure out how that will work in my new schedule.  I've managed to get in some games of the NT rules and plan some for DBA 3.0 as well.

Meanwhile, I've been playing a bunch of the NT rules, and the ones for Pike and Shot are really looking quite good.  Definitely giving me some forward momentum to progress with two sides of about 6 Units, which is what the 1HW rules use per side, with a max of ten units available to roll off from on the "army lists" provided.  While I don't think they're exactly "ECW Flavorful" they are evocative of the period and well deserve some playtests.  

The DA rules I've played about five times, and they are more nuanced than appear at first read.  Yes, I'll still experiment with some changes, but I'll be open to finding out that they're not needed or too complicated!  That is more than can be said for wargamers who change rules before they've even tried them out - which truly annoys me I might add.

Anyway, a summary of the NT Pike and Shot set will be along shortly.

Over 2000 views! Update on the project...

Wow, would never have thought this would get up to 2000 views in just a few months.  Hopefully this is getting new people interested in both ECW and 40mm.  My thanks to Tidders "For Ye King" and Bluebear Jeff for their encouragement and support.

Been a very busy few months.  In October I had significant (good) career developments, followed by a very busy holiday season, and then winter has been a zoo with the weather.  School cancellations right and left, lost hours of work and personal time, and a bunch of time spent playing and deciding about some dark ages rules (going with SAGA these days) which has resulted in me finally getting back to my craft table.  Probably half the paint is dried out by now...

But the other day, I had some inspiration for the quick-play ECW rules I'm working on.  They'll be at 1:10 and to scale on the table (altho not in scale with the figs themselves) so 1"=4 yards for now.   This makes effective shotte range about 12" and long range 24", which seem like a good size for small ECW battles.  Tidders is my inspiration here, as for some time I will be building up several small regiments to get into the table.  Considering a simple chipping system and an integrated turn sequence for both players, with diced movement.  Hope to get a draft that is worth playtesting sometime soon.  While I want it to play fast and fun, I want it to be very tactical and also represent real decisions that commanders would have faced in the period.

Also, the last of the 25mm ECW finally sold!  Took a lot longer than I thought despite it being such a good deal - 50% off or something, better than the Old Glory Army discount.  I am now officially "Only 40mm" for ECW.  Once it was rolling, even the painted figures weren't too painful to package up.

The net effect is that I'm even more clear-minded about proceeding in 40mm.  I think the most important thing right now is to paint up some figures. Consider how colorless the fellows below look - they remind me of my poor little bare men!

"We march, we march, to bring vengeance upon those who fail to paint us!"

Review: "Turncoat's Drum" by Nicholas Carter

While I do like to encourage anyone to write any fiction about the ECW, I find myself struggling to like Nicholas Carter or his writing.

There aren't loads of novels set in the English Civil War, altho there are a bunch around, including some famous authors like Daphne du Maurier.  A shame since it is such a fascinating clash - a classic struggle of those who think a single or few people governing is better than "the many" governing.  And in the end realizing that both are equally prone to fall into evil.

Yes, Charles I was a mediocre to bad king.  But what parliament replaced him with was even worse - chaos and then Bloody Cromwell.  A hard choice between two unappealing ends.

History aside, a novel set in this struggle should be rich with passionate people who truly care about which side they put their lives on the line for, and take advantage of the many interesting characters that populate the history of this war.  Yet Nicholas Carter leaves us wanting.

His style of  prose leads one to the conclusion that he himself thinks little of his characters - who are his own creation.  It's the words that he chooses, the traits he emphasizes.  Nearly none have redeeming qualities or are even balanced people.  Who Carter brings forward as characters are not representative of the war's participants, they are the mediocrities of the lot.  Small, mean, churlish and often described with in negative terms regarding their thoughts, character, physical traits, etc.

What kind of author dwells on the negative qualities of their own creations?

In any event, this book is a disheartening read.  You have little or no reason to like anyone, in even small ways.  While their commonality should be enjoyable (this isn't a story about Lords and Ladies) and something to relate to, one doesn't really have much interest.  Unlike life itself, which has a an interesting mix of likable and unlikable people, nearly none of Carter's characters are endearing.   As very few people have NO endearing qualities, one realizes after a time that this is Carter's view of humanity - contemptible.  Since he doesn't present them as worthy of acquaintance, neither should we find his characters worthy - we should pity them and their cruel creator.

I recommend you give this and all his books a pass, and read Rosemary Sutcliffe, Jacqueline Lawrence, or Daphne Du Maurier's books on the ECW instead.  They at least have love for their own people.

Results on "Embarrassment of Riches" Post

Well, a fair enough question, and a bit of a rarity in the gaming world.  What do you do when you unexpectedly make some money on your gaming habit?  In any event, the poll wasn't very conclusive, so fair enough not everyone's liking to participate.  In any event, as the month ended and the bills came due, I "donated" nearly all but a few hundred to the General Accountancy & Bill Paying Fund.  In other words, to my checking account.  But it still felt good to be putting some money back into the bills FROM wargaming instead of the other way around.  And there's still a few hundred for when I get caught up on this project and am ready for more.  Probably the decisive point was realizing that I still have a bunch of 40mm stuff to work on without acquiring "more, More, MORE!"

40mm Figure Comparison: Romanoff v. Sash & Saber

Well, inevitably there just HAS to be a discussion of this, it's one of the most popular and perhaps important topic of shared info regarding figs.  Amazingly, I didn't even think to compare them and I didn't notice a size discrepancy until I started to play around with basing schemes.  Check out the photographic evidence:

The Romanoff has longer legs and is a bit bulkier.  They're a net 2-3mm taller and I probably wouldn't mix them in the same regiment altho they'd be fine on the same table.  This is important b/c there isn't a ton of 40mm sculpts out there for ECW.  The variety Romanoff offers is quite useful for my early war style of regiments, and I wouldn't want to have to pass on them.  The identical pics just vary the light conditions as each shows different aspects better, I think.  At some point I need to get some Jacdaw figs as well:
http://www.oldgloryuk.com/disp_items.php?m=47&sh=2

While the Romanoff are more expensive and take some time to assemble, I still enjoy the final result and look forward to the command pack.  I'll add some pike to it as well for a full regiment which I intend to use as Trained Bande.  Then they too can fight for either side!

Worthless Opinions and Questionable Integrity: Who lies behind the ID "Gloria Smud" at TMP?

Let's consider his attack on Mr. Portner [and occasionally Mr. Portner's review of A Crowning Mercy - note that the review is the post below, judge it for yourself] at TMP:

I have been reading, with some interest and amusement [how condescending!], the many and various posts this reviewer has made regarding this particular rule-set and feel it would only be fair [I doubt he'd know fair if the tent was over his house] to point out a few caveats when reading it.

Ken Portner appears to be on some sort of a personal crusade against this set of rules and possibly it's author . [no, just the quality of the writing, but it does make one wonder what relationship the elusive GS has with its author]

Mr.Portner had already made various disparaging remarks concerning ACM – even though as it transpired when grudgingly [a lie! first of so many...] admitted that:
1) He did not own a copy.
2) Had not read them.
3) In fact had not even seen them.

With this in mind I think even the most open minded and charitable of us will suspect this review as hardly being an unbiased and impartial one [the excellent review stands on its own merit - GS is clearly in bed with Mr. Bickley as we'll discover later].

Having been outed [lie #2, the reviewer clearly has nothing to hide, but again the tone is interesting, as tho' GS actually thinks he can 'out' someone who uses their real name while he hides behind his] Mr. Portner then seems to have taken the trouble to then acquire a copy of ACM [Mr. Portner does in fact say that he purchased the rules - I think Smud may be an investigator or a barrister perhaps], with what seems to like [sic] the sole intention of rubbishing them at every opportunity, presumably to confirm his previous rantings [ah yes, another condescending insult], and now has produced this so called [sic] review.

Some may also question his intentions, honesty & motives. [Ah, more insults and  insinuations!  Actually, we question YOUR intentions, honesty and motives GS!  As well as your integrity] The reader should be aware that although posting lots of questions on TMP Mr. Portner very much left the impression that author Mr.Bickley had not answered them [lie #3, or is it #4?]. A fact completely untrue, he had directly but not on TMP. Mr Portner I am reliably informed [one guesses by Mr. Bickley - it gets easier and easier to see the angle] had entered into a lengthy correspondence with the author. Although at no point did he reveal his intention to write a critique of ACM presumably in the hope that "he might catch the author out". [Hey look, another place where Gloria Smut makes insinuating and insulting remarks - UNBELIEVABLE!!!]

I think it would also be pertinent at this point to also advise the reader of his review that Mr.Portner although having apparently gone through them with a fine tooth-comb very clearly has not played them [that must be the part where Mr. Portner says that he hasn't played them, but has read them thoroughly, I'm grateful to have Mr. Smut around to help me with these things], I have, otherwise he simply would not have made certain comments, observations & critique. [since

Some of the comments are just ridiculous [Insult #4 or 5?] and as another TMPer put it "nitpicking". [I'll hide behind other people's insults like I hide behind my ID!"]

eg; "written with 25/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale"
I don't think I need comment further. [25-28mm is a length not a scale.  It's a length with which I bet you are VERY familiar, eh? I mean, after 40 years of gaming?]

"There is a lot to keep track of. You have to track each unit's morale state, its FE rate as it falls and rises during the game, and you have to keep track of kills per base. (since kills in hand to hand aren't just piled on all on one base). You'll also need markers to denote Shotte bases that aren't loaded and thus can't fire. So that's either a roster on paper or a lot of markers on the table."

Staggering! You mean like you have to in most games. Again I don't need to comment further [not that you ever stop commenting, to our loss]

At this point I think it is only fair to advise anyone bothering to read this that I know the author, Mr.Bickley, in a wargaming capacity, have gamed with him and others in his company.  [I CAN'T BELIEVE IT - THIS PARAGON OF VIRTUOUS, EVEN-HANDED CRITIQUE IS ACTUALLY IN THE POCKET OF THE AUTHOR!!  my world has crumbled]
I can honestly say [actually, you can't honestly say anything you forked-tongued Bickley-bedder] I've always enjoyed these games – they've been fun. We have used all sorts of other peoples rules as well including VWQ and enjoyed them.

BTW the rather good VWQ is an interesting example to bring up – because they are rules which are not the finished product – they are a work in progress – that's probably why they are free. [which is exactly why Mr. Bickley's half-finished rules should be free, incidentally]

I have corresponded with the most amiable Mr. Harrison who informed me he hoped at some later date to finalise them & possibly co-produce them into a fine glossy product, the legendary Barry Hilton was mentioned. [this sort of "I know VERY important people" commentary really turns one's stomach, doesn't it?  Both these guys  - whoever they are - probably have the amount of respect for Mr. Smut that he's earned]

Grandreviewroad – the reviewer can't answer that because he's never actually played them. Even though I am sure he'd still have a negative opinion to air.

I & My fellow gamers [It's SOOOO marvelous for his "fellow gamers" to have the Smudder speak for them.   Now I feel really nauseated] have come to the conclusion that if you think you're playing ECW or ACW or Napoleonics & if you play with that attitude, with another or group of like-minded people, then you'll probably enjoy most rules – after almost 40 years of gaming I still haven't the perfect set ;-)  [I can't believe anyone's put up with this dross for 40 years and not pulled his tongue out by the roots...then again, he is just typing so maybe his 'fellow gamers' have?]

That aside I would say ACM is really for ECW where the armies were mostly "semi-professional" with little or no training (new model army and veterans excepted) so there arern't the complex maneuvers, etc. that you might expect say in the 30YW.
[I'd say that semi-professional is the only apt comment made RE: ACM by Smut]

********************************************

Yes, there it is folks, and after a dozen insulting, demeaning, condescending posts by this fellow, Bill "Flounder" Trout suspends Mr. Portner for defending himself and the Smutter is still free to roam.   Is it any wonder why TMP [and Flounder's skill] gets so little respect?  Still, after numerous examples of Flounder's failure to edit in anything remotely approaching a fair, logical and reasonable manner, I should be used to it by now.  I guess that's why the Flames of War people have moved on to WWPD, and other forums.  Do the paying advertisers know this?

*********************************************
Update:  Gloris Smud pontificates on the one thing he apparently knows personally:
"Unfortunately the internet & in particular forums, are full of sad, bitter, little, self-important, twisted individuals who never have a good word to say about anyone or anything.
Most have never done anything worthy of note or constructive in their lives and are often just attention seekers.  They're usually very good at dishing it out & not so keen when it goes the other way."These are the sort of reflections that the Smudderer should share with his reflection...And of course the Flounder twiddles those beefy thumbs and wonders what could possibly be the problem - ?