|
Having an absurd to do list is all part of being a historical grog. I've done about 75%-ish of my ECW army and it was a fairly quick job. Pretty basic tabletop standard (basecoat, wash, quick highlight on the faces) and it took about 3 months.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Having an absurd to do list is all part of being a historical grog. I think I'm going to have to do this to save my sanity, then go back over for a second round of detailing when they're all done if I haven't pulled out my hair by then. I've got an airbrush in-hand now (inherited) but it's siphon feed. I guess it'll be good for horses? Is there anything I should really know ahead of time before assembling this ECW battalia? As above I'm looking for it to be roughly divided down the middle when I'm in Pike and Shotte mode so are there particulars that I'm going to be peeved about when I realise them later when it comes to colours, equipment, etc. ? It would appear the Royalists are more flamboyant in style and colour, but I'd also associate them mentally with older style fighting and tactics but I've read only the Parliamentarians fielded full Cuirassier regiments? What gives? EDIT: Reading 'Solo Wargaming' and the guy suggests to create a hex map and run a sort of 'meta game' for a self driven campaign. His example uses 30 x 30 hexes, each one representing 5mi. Here's one of 20 x 20, each representing 10mi roughly accurate:  Really, I guess the civil war was just alot of sitting around, because frankly the distances are laughably small - Birmingham to London is less than 130 miles! I think in retrospect this particular method might not be suitable to ECW unless I just accept it'll be an alternate reality! The idea behind this is to not let solo games just devolve entirely into rather meaningless guff, and instead instil some sense of purpose to playing. From what I can gather, one creates a map like so, marking each city as being able to raise a certain number of troops (for P&S I guess we'll say 1, 2, 3 or 4 battalia plus militia). For a given campaigning season the attacker makes a few different plans (i.e. push forward from the north-east with a Scots army through Bedford and try to divide the Parliamentarian forces in half), and selects one by rolling a D6. Three comparable defense strategies are created (i.e. converge an East and West army on Birmingham and London) and a D6 is rolled to decide which is enacted. Roll a D6 to see how many days lead the attacker has and then get moving your battalia chits, resolving battles as one would expect. There are rules for supply lines, weather, casualties, revolts, mustering and mutiny. It also makes very natural set ups for actual play boards, scenarios: if my Royalist forces have been staying relatively static and the mission for the Parliamentarians is to charge ahead to London - then it's likely they'll be ambushed, or at least be taking on a fortified position. Maybe the mission is a breakthrough? More than likely it's a fighting retreat. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Woo! Completed and I managed not to sperg too much over the details: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Campaign idea is fun, might need to steal it for Hams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Those dudes look awesome
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Really, I guess the civil war was just alot of sitting around, because frankly the distances are laughably small - Birmingham to London is less than 130 miles! I think in retrospect this particular method might not be suitable to ECW unless I just accept it'll be an alternate reality!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:At an average speed of maybe five miles a day 130 miles suddenly becomes a significant distance to cover. It's not just packing up and walking off down the road, there's a fuckton involved in moving an army from point A to point B while keeping it "an army" rather than "some guys and a few drunk horses". In my youth I did a 140 mile walk with a bunch of other shithead teenagers cross-country and it took eight days walking at least seven hours a day. Very few of us had the energy to do anything after that and I know for a fact that one of the guys on the trip with me is now playing international rugby so it's not like it was just a bunch of pasty nerds. where are you getting an average marching speed of 5 miles a day? by your own personal example, you were moving 17.5 miles a day, which falls right in the middle of the 15-20 that seems to be common
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
There's a big difference in the speed of a small group of hikers compared to a regiment of troops marching in even rough cohesion. Armies are slow as gently caress, particularly with their baggage train in tow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah, we went crazy fast and there were like 50 of us only, travelling with modern footwear on modern roads and not having to carry our own food. I think the realistic marching speed is actually far lower than five miles a day even. The MilHist thread had some stats at some point before Christmas, but it's a huge thread so I ain't even gonna try find it. 130 miles is a significant distance to move a pre-motorisation army. It took Harald Hadrada three weeks to get from Stamford Bridge to Hastings after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
so the roman legions marching ~20 miles a day must be a myth? how about the road marches i had to do? wish someone wouldve told the guys in charge that 5 miles is it e: ps harald hardrada wouldve had a really loving hard time making it to hastings in three weeks, since he was killed at stamford bridge. maybe you mean harold godwinson? bear in mind his army allegedly marched from london to yorkshire, about 185 miles, in 4 days. thats over 46 miles per day. perhaps going flat out like that, then fighting a battle where roughly a third of his army was killed might have played a role in how slow they were to get back south to hastings? Kung Fu Fist Fuck fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
I wouldn't put it past Harald Hadrada to kill Harold Godwinson, wear his skin and then attempt to beat the poo poo out of William of Normandy. Wouldn't put it past him to gently caress it up either 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Roman legions, to be fair, were notoriously focused on efficiency of loaded march. New recruits were often trained in marching for months before they even began weapons training. The march of Harold's troops to meet the Norman's was an infamously swift one, and is believed by many historians to have contributed to his defeat. Again, i don't think it's a good touchstone. He certainly didn't spend two weeks marching though - this is probably a mistake due to he fact that the defeat of Harald Hadrada was two weeks prior to the Battle of Hastings... But King Harold didn't start marching right away. It's certainly true that the disorganised, primarily peasant, armies of the early to middle medeival period would have struggled to make good time (I've seen estimates between 5 and 10 miles a day), but logistics were rather better by the time of the ECW, and the composition of armies had changed. Still, I'd be surprised if they made better time than 15 miles per day - that seems a rough cap on pre-modern loaded march that's not by a specialist force (like the Romans). So we'd expect Birmingham to London to take around 8 days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Ugh, yeah, I do. Hard to keep Harold's straight at this time of the morning. The Roman legion was a very different beast to the English Civil War armies. The teeth to tail ratio was basically inverted, and the period you're talking about there isn't known as "get drunk, shoot pistols out of windows and sue your officers". Did your marches require you to tear down your base in the morning and rebuild it? Were you stopping regularly to confer with recon parties? Did you even need recon parties because you knew the area was secure? How hunogver were you? How many of your dudes had the shits because Jim took a dump upstream yesterday? I know that due to a fuckup on my first day we went the wrong way and ended up adding an extra 14 miles onto the planned "easy start" of 18, but all I had to do that night was put food in my face and pick a bed. Nobody made us build the castle or cook our own food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
"How hungover were you?" is a question I've seen many professional academics miss entirely. It's very easy to assume a military force is uniformly competent, but it's a critical mistake. There's an awful, awful lot of faffing about when it comes to doing anything in even today's militaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Woo! Completed and I managed not to sperg too much over the details: Nice dudes! As for marching, don't underestimate just how long time it took to get everyone started. If you were at the end of a large marching column it could take hours until it was your time to start marching, and in worst time it would take until nighttime to arrive. And if you were poo poo out of luck French cavalry in Russia, you'd likely have to wait mounted with saddles on in fear of getting ambushed by pesky cossacks. And then your horse is tired with saddle sores before you even start off. And then they die, and everything is poo poo, because you're marching in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Interesting conversation! Honestly I'm wondering if this research is better left undone - but it appears that the Royalist forces had a) fewer, less motivated dudes with b) older weaponry, less armour and c) a mostly hostile populace - with that in mind, I am failing to see how this conflict over at most the stretch of 200 miles from tip to toe took five years with such a vast disadvantage to one side? I wonder if my campaign map might better be either fictionalised or smaller (say, 5mi hexes with say, Bristol and Bournemouth as the two cities - rather than London and Oxford!) - thoughts? I wonder what'd be to stop a stack-of-death with all ten battalia in a single place? Maybe some kind of rule for shelter and victuals which precludes more than four stacks bunching up in adjacent hexes? Osprey books are amazing, I've just finished one on infantry and it really does highlight the issues facing both sides: no standing armies, desertion, mutiny, scrambling for food and shelter. And there are some very helpful tips on modelling too - the lack of helmets for musketeers, etc. and loads of big colour illustrations. I'm set, I think! Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Interesting conversation! Honestly I'm wondering if this research is better left undone - but it appears that the Royalist forces had a) fewer, less motivated dudes with b) older weaponry, less armour and c) a mostly hostile populace - with that in mind, I am failing to see how this conflict over at most the stretch of 200 miles from tip to toe took five years with such a vast disadvantage to one side? Brits were bad at land warfare.  But yeah, with the right circumstances and politics, you could have long wars in relatively small areas. Just ask 17th century Germany. And Ospreys are usually great starting points if you are on an army collection level. Sure, some of the authors get some details wrong, and they are not as in-depth as most "real" history books, but when you just need to know how the f to paint a Dutch Musketeer, they're perfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
17th century Britain had a ludicrous density of castles and fortified manors as well, and each one of them needed to be sieged down, restocked and repaired, garrisoned, sieged by the other side and finally "slighted" so that it couldn't be used again (and then slighted again later on). So an example: Old Wardour castle in Wiltshire. It's royalist at first, but then as the parliamentary army marches west against Oxford (2 years later) about 30 guys and an old woman hold it (it's a whacking great huge 14th century hexagonal fortification and a real bitch to assault) against Hungerfords army for a week, it's taken by parliament and then a year later retaken by royalists. So that's held up the Parliamentary army for about a month (laying siege, taking the castle, securing it), and later held up the royalists for another couple of months. 20 miles west, easy and north are more castles with the same kind of history. 30-40 miles to the south there are three. And this is a comparatively light area in terms of fortification. The east west marches of parliament and the royalists took ages - stopping and detaching at least some men each time. Edit: it's worth saying that both sides had areas of advantage and disadvantage. If the royalists were in the north or west they could largely count on support. London and Norfolk were no go areas - staunchly Parliament. Both were then tied to their parts of the country - having to defend their heartlands while at the same time striking at the other's. At the same time there's all these political developments and working out exactly what a British army should look like that slow things down. Parliament commanded regionally organised forces that often had serious reluctance to march off and leave their own areas defenceless, some of which wanted to avoid combat altogether so that some form of political resolution could be found. Essex and Manchester were both kind of reluctant to fight the King, and eventually parliament passed the self denying ordinance aimed at restructuring the army, which took a good long while. It was an intensely political and regional war, not a march from one place to the other looking for a battle. Eventually it went on long enough that the armies were terrorised by bands of villagers armed with oak staffs. It was a weird succession of wars. lenoon fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Why would you even need to siege a manor house defended by thirty guys with an entire army? Just leave a handful of guys to make sure they can't get out and then be on your merry way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
I think it was mainly because it could be stealthily reinforced if they just buggered off - there's also a fair bit of worry that with a non existent front, every fortifiable point is potentially valuable in the future if it's yours. Add to that the fact that the besieged aren't exactly saying "there's only 30 guys here" but instead going "cursed be you foul rebels", and by 1644 everyone hates the living poo poo out of each other and more than half of the parliamentary army is convinced that the royalists are secret Catholics and the royalists literally believe the parliamentarians are bringing about the end of days by attacking the king, and it's a very very bitter war. All resistance must be crushed on all sides, kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:so the roman legions marching ~20 miles a day must be a myth? how about the road marches i had to do? wish someone wouldve told the guys in charge that 5 miles is it I dunno whether five miles a day is accurate or not as a good average. But yes, we might get into the 20 range in modern militaries, that's also just a combat arms unit hiking for training. You're probably carrying a standard combat load for a few days; not for a week or more. Your additional logistics are gonna be trucked or air lifted. That's what's gonna really slow down a historical army. Plus, they are talking army size, not a battalion sized unit. Imagine the cluster of marching an army without modern comms or transport. On the subject of marching; trying to remember a feat from the civil war where an army marched like twenty miles overnight and then fought and won a battle. Or any other marching to a battle records set during that war. Any searching I do just turns up Sherman's March.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:I dunno whether five miles a day is accurate or not as a good average. But yes, we might get into the 20 range in modern militaries, that's also just a combat arms unit hiking for training. You're probably carrying a standard combat load for a few days; not for a week or more. Your additional logistics are gonna be trucked or air lifted. That's what's gonna really slow down a historical army. Plus, they are talking army size, not a battalion sized unit. Imagine the cluster of marching an army without modern comms or transport. I don't remember which battle but I'm pretty sure Stonewall Jackson did this feat at one point. He was famed for averaging 13.5 miles/day during the Valley Campaign (implying the speed of the average civil war army was slower), and afterwards for basically doing a victorian teleport via march and rail to appear at the Seven Days while the Union reports all still put him at the Valley. His unusally sluggish performance there has been attributed to fatigue from the grueling pace of the transit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:On the subject of marching; trying to remember a feat from the civil war where an army marched like twenty miles overnight and then fought and won a battle. Or any other marching to a battle records set during that war. Any searching I do just turns up Sherman's March.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:so the roman legions marching ~20 miles a day must be a myth? how about the road marches i had to do? wish someone wouldve told the guys in charge that 5 miles is it The Roman 20 miles a day could very easily be a myth or a carryover of Roman propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:On the subject of marching; trying to remember a feat from the civil war where an army marched like twenty miles overnight and then fought and won a battle. Or any other marching to a battle records set during that war. Any searching I do just turns up Sherman's March. Jackson's force in the Shenandoah Valley was referred to as "foot cavalry" because of how fast they could move. There were several factors at work here: first, Jackson was crazy-organized; there was none of the bullshit you saw in the Army of Northern Virginia where division and corps commanders argued about who had precedence to step off from their line of departure first (most notoriously demonstrated by Benjamin Huger, who basically hosed the Confederacy at Seven Pines by forcing Longstreet to wait for him - Huger's force was the strategic reserve and not even slated to participate in the opening of the battle, whereas Longstreet's force was the flanking element and had the farthest to travel). Second, it was a point of pride for his men, and they pushed themselves accordingly. Finally, one of Jackson's aides-de-camp was a surveyor and cartographer - Jackson actually had detailed and accurate maps of the ground over which he was travelling, which the Union did not (a fact I find mind-boggling given the modern military's reliance on GIS/GPS). In some cases, the distance marched by Jackson's army was actually less than that for which they were credited because they essentially used shortcuts about which the Union had no knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
What sticks out in my mind was a 27 mile march in one day but I can't find it.quote:For the remainder of the Valley Campaign, Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder commanded the brigade and there were no more defeats in store. The brigade marched over 400 miles in four weeks, was victorious in six significant battles, and helped Jackson achieve a strategic victory in the Eastern Theater. The brigade's mobility in the campaign (particularly a 57-mile march in 51 hours) earned it the oxymoronic title "Jackson's foot cavalry".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Did your marches require you to tear down your base in the morning and rebuild it? Were you stopping regularly to confer with recon parties? Did you even need recon parties because you knew the area was secure? How hunogver were you? How many of your dudes had the shits because Jim took a dump upstream yesterday? the amount of those questions that i could answer yes to might surprise you  glad my offhanded remark generated all the interesting posts though
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I think it was mainly because it could be stealthily reinforced if they just buggered off - there's also a fair bit of worry that with a non existent front, every fortifiable point is potentially valuable in the future if it's yours. Add to that the fact that the besieged aren't exactly saying "there's only 30 guys here" but instead going "cursed be you foul rebels", and by 1644 everyone hates the living poo poo out of each other and more than half of the parliamentary army is convinced that the royalists are secret Catholics and the royalists literally believe the parliamentarians are bringing about the end of days by attacking the king, and it's a very very bitter war. All resistance must be crushed on all sides, kind of thing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
I'll be honest I always thought the ECW was only popular because it took place in England where most games are made but I am getting more interested
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Maybe I remembered wrong. Thanks for posting those feats though. I can't imagine doing some of those marched
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
The 30 Years War is like the ECW's more interesting and bigger cousin, but with half the coverage because ECWmuggins posted:took place in England where most games are made
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Well even calling it "the English Civil War" is a Matter Of Some Debate. Various historians argue between two and three separate wars that just happened to have mostly the same factions on the relevant sides.Broguts posted:The Roman 20 miles a day could very easily be a myth or a carryover of Roman propaganda. about in Roman history, like Caesars claim in Commentarii de Bello Gallico that some Gauls built a fort that had 15 miles of wall using nothing but their swords and cloaks for tools. In less than three hours...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Well even calling it "the English Civil War" is a Matter Of Some Debate. Various historians argue between two and three separate wars that just happened to have mostly the same factions on the relevant sides. Can you elaborate
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Well even calling it "the English Civil War" is a Matter Of Some Debate. Various historians argue between two and three separate wars that just happened to have mostly the same factions on the relevant sides. Well poo poo, I've done 20,000 steps in a day. I was exhausted afterwards, and I wasn't carrying a bunch of gear, but I'm 36 and out of shape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
muggins posted:Can you elaborate It's the whole "war of three kingdoms" thing. Series of wars that were all interrelated, all over England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Couple of post-restoration armed rebellions too. Makes it all told about 20ish years of war with a twelve year peace towards the very end. As per Wikipedia: Bishops' Wars 1639-1640 Scottish Civil War of 1644–45 Irish Rebellion of 1641 Confederate Ireland, 1642–49 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649 First English Civil War 1642-46 Second 1648-9 Third 1650–51 Venner's Uprising 1661
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Well poo poo, I've done 20,000 steps in a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
my 6mm current and near future Australian armour has arrived theyre so cool and detailed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
muggins posted:I'll be honest I always thought the ECW was only popular because it took place in England where most games are made but I am getting more interested The english and the conflicts they were involved in are kinda overrepresented in rules/models, I think. The TYW being typically presented as a fun spinoff for your ECW dudes is the prime example though. Arquinsiel posted:If it makes you feel better the Roman step is counted as a full gait cycle rather than just moving one foot My phone's pedometer says I walked circa 20,000 steps/10,000 roman steps and 9.6 miles yesterday, so that is surprisingly accurate. I'm also short so I am probably doing a proper roman pace and not the loping gait of most of you massive barbarians. vintagepurple fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Kommando posted:my 6mm current and near future Australian armour has arrived Robo-Kangaroos?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Robo-Kangaroos? Roo-bots?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:55
|
|
