Home Forums Renaissance Battle of Lansdowne 1643 – A Polemos ECW Refight

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #71254
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Please see here for details of a refight of the battle of Landsdown using the Polemos ECW rules:

    http://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/a-polemos-ecw-refight-battle-of.html

     

    • This topic was modified 4 years ago by Whirlwind.
    • This topic was modified 4 years ago by Whirlwind.

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #71306
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    Your link appears to be missing:

    http://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/a-polemos-ecw-refight-battle-of.html

     

    Interesting – I’ve walked the site and decided it was one of those battles that can’t be easily done.

    Commercial rules seem geared to a particular type of set up and start position which precludes much of the interesting development of the battle in its early stages.  I guess you came to the same conclusion given where you started the battle! Not a criticism by the way.

    The fight up to the main battle – the attack of Hesilrige’s cuirassiers on the Royalists at Tog Hill, the retreat of the Royalist horse and the subsequent counterattack with the Cornish mixed in with the horse prior to the main battle are very difficult to game without ending up with a completely different battle. Similarly the fascinating ending with the Parliamentary forces slipping away in the night behind the wall is unlikely to occur in a free replaying of the battle.

    The former seems to need a more free flowing approach – perhaps almost free Kriegsspieled with an Umpire – but it may not lead to the battle that occurred, but you will probably end up with a fight for the slope and the plateau. The ending I guess is very much in the lap of the gods but that wall does provide a nice solid base for the Parliamentarians so could feature.

    I’m going to have to reconsider my attitude to gaming this battle having read your report.

    Thanks as always.

    An intriguing approach to battle reports.

     

    #71309
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Thanks very much for pointing out the missing  link Guy, I have now amended it.

    We are in total agreement about the first stages of this battle.  It all sounds very exciting stuff but I have no idea how to refight it and even have the possibility of it turning into anything resembling the set-piece battle at the end, so I just decided to re-fight that bit.  I didn’t mention it in the actual report, but I have set-up this battle twice and then abandoned it when I realized that the battle as described in the article and on wiki didn’t actually tie-in with the wargames scenario outlined.  I don’t think this would happen in scenarios published in modern wargaming magazines; all the editors seem committed to the scenarios being more tightly written than they were back in the early 1980s!  But I do think that it shows a perhaps systemic weakness in the rules of the period I have experience of.  Maybe Peter Pig’s Regiment of Foote might be the answer?  I suppose DBR might manage it too, to be fair.

    I did consider putting the wall on the plateau in but decided I would rather have more of the approach in; on balance that was a mistake, I think that it would have been more interesting to have another Parliamentary fall back position there.  But I think I was still rowing back from trying to re-create the whole thing and didn’t move far enough to “just” doing the set piece attack.

    For some reason, I have had far more trouble bringing ECW battles to the table than Napoleonic , Wars of the Roses or Early Medieval battles, for instance.  Rowton Heath and Stratton are still beating me at the moment!

     

     

     

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.