Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Silent Invader on September 30, 2011, 09:35:29 AM
-
Much (erm, totally) inspired by Captain Blood's efforts (here (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?action=gallery;su=user;cat=244;u=577)), I have started a WotR project using the Perry plastics.
My first conundrum is unit composition. Reading the Osprey book the ratio of archers to MAA was about 7:1 but the Perry leaflet says it could go as low as 4:1.
So, the question is, for skirmish gaming what sort of ratio are other folks using?
I'm thinking 4:1.
Thanks. :)
-
Much (erm, totally) inspired by Captain Blood's efforts (here (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?action=gallery;su=user;cat=244;u=577)), I have started a WotR project using the Perry plastics.
My first conundrum is unit composition. Reading the Osprey book the ratio of archers to MAA was about 7:1 but the Perry leaflet says it could go as low as 4:1.
So, the question is, for skirmish gaming what sort of ratio are other folks using?
I'm thinking 4:1.
Thanks. :)
Gor for Perry vesrion that way you can field more gucci hack and slash merchants otherwise it could be a long range affair whihc kills skirmish a little
-
Ooooh dear. Very unhistorically, I have a ratio of roughly equal proportions of bows to bills to men-at-arms. Would be an awfully boring game with 80 longbowmen and 20 more interesting figures on the tabletop...
Interestingly, given the alleged huge proportion of longbow armed figures supposedly present in WOTR armies, most of the battles seem to have been decided by guy in armour hacking lumps out of each other at close quarters. Archery was mainly for softening up the opposition. Which doesn't really square with armies being 80% - 90% composed of longbowmen, does it? ::)
-
I have plans for a fortified manor house in the style of Stokesay.
Now that, I'm looking forward to seeing already :)
-
Not sure where the 1:7 sources was basing their figures on - more like 1:4 heading towards 1:1 in the latter end. So you are fine.
-
I built a model loosely based on Stokesay after seeing it in a book 15+ years ago. It turned out to be too large to be useful on the tabletop though.
-
Now that, I'm looking forward to seeing already :)
Seconded :D
cheers
James
-
Ah, okay. Ospreys can be a bit hit and miss as the author's are seemingly encouraged to present opinion as fact ;-)
-
The 1475 figures so often quoted were for the expedition to France, a picked force. It specifies Men at arms and archers, but doesn't mention billmen at all. Did 'archer' become shorthand for all, in the same way as we'd say 'soldier'?
Jump a few years ahead to Flodden and the numbers were approximately an even split between archers and billmen/men at arms. The very few muster rolls from the Wars of the Roses period show a roughly even split between billmen and archers too, along with a number of men who had armour they couldn't wear (in disrepair or hand me down that were too small?), or had no weapon at all.
The amount of laws enacted to require archery practice during the period also point to a decline in the numbers of archers. Laws generally only get passed to deal with a problem, not in anticipation of one.
For me, I'd go with a 2:1/3:1/4:1 or so ratio, for a 'retained' or contracted core force, with hastily raised men at a 1:1 ratio. I'm including 'men at arms' in with the billmen here, with more bills being evident in the 'levies' ranks.
-
my understanding is now much improved.
Get on with it then, we want to see figures :D ;)
cheers
James
-
What happened to the Aliens project SI?
-
Haven't come across any alien involvement in the Wars of the Roses myself.
-
Personally, I've used a more or less 1:1 mix of bills and bows for my retinues, with fully armoured men at arms being organised into seperate and indeed "gucci" units. It may not be entirely accurate but it has a pleasing symetry and I like it so I don't really care.
I think its also worth noting that although archers may have been the majority at one point, they were usually as well armoured as the billmen and they got stuck in with the swordwork when the opportunity presented itself. Arlequin's comment about archer being a catch-all term for soldier makes good sense to me.
Think comparably with Napoleonic troops - they may have been equiped with muskets, but battles were finished with the bayonet. >:D
-
I think its also worth noting that although archers may have been the majority at one point, they were usually as well armoured as the billmen and they got stuck in with the swordwork when the opportunity presented itself.
Even better armoured than most billmen, I'd go as far to say. In terms of pay and social standing the archer was a step above the billman. Billmen didn't get their employers head-hunting them and offering incentives, benefits and the occasional gift to keep them in service either. Archers were a resource (even a 'career choice' perhaps), whereas any man could carry a bill and were largely those who preferred to play football on a Sunday instead of practising their archery. But yes, archers weren't afraid to fight and carried the tools and had the physique to do the job.
Obviously I'm talking about the typical billmen, what are usually described as 'Retinue Billmen' were more likely those who would be described as 'men at arms' if they could afford more substantial armour than they possessed.
Anyone's suggestion as to ratios is just as valid/incorrect as anyone else's, the same goes for formations, so please yourself. I'd imagine that if I was a noble paying wages for a contingent, I'd be pretty selective in who I took on. If there was no choice and time was an issue, I'd have to settle for who turned up obviously.
I once suggested tongue in cheek, that anyone buying for the WotR should set themselves a budget, then painstakingly scour manufacturer's catalogues and spend 25% exactly on what they wanted. The remaining money should be spent in the last 30 minutes at a wargames show with the request to the trader that they give you £x of WotR figures, or 'as many as they could goodly make' and then leave the selection to them. Obviously that late in the day, they might have to post some or all of them on to you from stock at a later date. If you were strapped for cash you could of course try getting some with the promise of paying for them at some vague later date. How's that for simulation?
;)
-
Interesting discussion :)
Slightly off topic I suppose but the ECW pikeman was thought of as the gentleman on the field and the musketeers were just the local 'have a goes'.
All to do with the training of course and I suspect the same was true of the WotR (just weapon reversal).
You do know Steve that it's getting more and more tempting to get a box or two myself :D
cheers
James
-
Interesting discussion :)
You do know Steve that it's getting more and more tempting to get a box or two myself :D
cheers
James
They are highly addictive, now you have been warned :D
-
Going back to topic, I would venture that it was a case of who could be mustered in the time available. As you can see from mine I go for roughly 1:1 but then with the rules I will possibly be using its immaterial anyway.
With these things I'm always mindful of a lot of WWII games I see where every tank platoon/squadron is at full strength, ideal yes, reality?
Go for the look I say.
-
Regarding Phil's point about rules, I've started to draft some with a melee and movement structure that will allow poleweapons to be engaged at 1" whereas sword/mace etc will have to be in base to base contact. This means that billmen attacking say archers will have a free poke/hack before the archers can close to full contact and respond. I'm trying to achieve a situation where the archer will have the advantage at a distance (bows) and at base contact (swords) whereas billmen will have the advantage at near base contact. What do you think: realistic?
I'm not being intentionally awkward, but there's an assumption here that they fought as separate entities. It might be valid that bills stood at the back of the archers and then moved forwards when the enemy closed... the 'mixed' or 'combined' formation of some rule sets. Alternatively if your bills and men at arms were in one unit and your archers on the flanks, attacking archers with your bills, leaves your archers vulnerable to your opponent's heavy infantry.
I honestly don't have a clue how they lined up for battle, or what their tactics were. A man who knows what he's doing with a bill could well be more than a match for an experienced archer with sword and buckler, a man that doesn't is likely to be a liability to himself and his companions. Would the archers, if they felt themselves vulnerable to the bills, actually stand there patiently waiting to be charged, or would they fall back behind a main battle line of men at arms and bills?
We're pretty much back to the same answer as for troop ratios, whatever works for you is best. ;)
-
Interesting discussion :)
Slightly off topic I suppose but the ECW pikeman was thought of as the gentleman on the field and the musketeers were just the local 'have a goes'.
All to do with the training of course and I suspect the same was true of the WotR (just weapon reversal).
You do know Steve that it's getting more and more tempting to get a box or two myself :D
cheers
James
I left some Perry sprues down the club (as well as my two box force).
So you can knock some together at no cost ;)