What are the merits of Wargaming TYW and ECW?

[MiniPigs]

Or are these periods just popular for tabletop because their respective nationalities keep them alive?

I understand that the period is interesting and colorful but what specifically makes this period wargame-able?

For instance it's hard to tell the armies apart and the units organizations appear both inflexible and possessing weak fire power and artillery. From what I can tell, the inflexibility of the foot formations seems to demand repetitive tactics when replayed on tabletop.

I notice that there are a great deal of resources dedicated to this period but I wonder if they do not exist solely because the sources are available in English and German which in turn generates interest at a non-wargaming level but, after expending much effort to get armies to tabletop, yields disappointment at the wargaming level?

Thus, before someone invests large amounts of time and money to get miniatures armies done up, it would be encouraging to hear what makes tabletop games for the ECW and TYW stay fresh and innovative, rather than rote and pedestrian.

[FifteensAway]

Excellent question and my answer will be from personal experience.  I bought and painted up a small ECW army - in 15 mm - including infantry, cavalry, artillery, and command and a few sets of rules and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't for me.  I did trade the army and rules for figures more useful to me.  I think it was the general tactics in use that didn't appeal to me. 

I decided, with a few specialized exceptions to stay on this side of 1750 so my first significant period is the French and Indian War (and with a stop point at the Boxer Rebellion - though maybe extending to German East Africa or pulpish sorts of games).  I do have collections from earlier but my Vikings are up for offer, I'm debating about my Robin Hood and Three Musketeers (maybe keep the latter).  I also have Pirates in process of adjusting to early 1700s (had some Napoleonic figures mixed in that are being mixed out).  Of course, for mainstay wargaming, all is in my stated period: AWI, Indian Mutiny, ACW, Old West, Colonials, and Boxer Rebellion - and even some of those are slated to go away due to time and storage space considerations.

Some will be along soon to sing the praises of the periods in question but you are doing it right by asking these questions now rather than later.  Clearly, you wouldn't be asking without some interest.  I prefer more maneuver on the field and the time period in question has most of the maneuver before arriving on the field.

Just my thoughts - and I included more on my collection to bring up the reality that we can overextend ourselves with too much stuff.  Best to focus on core interests and maybe dabble in a few others.  I've settled on my mainstays as AWI, Old West, and Colonials (and keeping Pirates and French and Indian War and maybe the Three Musketeers).  But hard to get to the decision to let go.  Bloody addictive hobby - sometimes.

[MiniPigs]

Yes, addictive and expensive.

I love the look of the Early to mid 17th century. I just recently read 'All the King's Armies"  and thought it was good stuff. My concern is that the period might be a very attractive lure.

After I bought a large number of back issue CDs for Miniature Wargames magazine, I noticed that listed in the separately provided indexes for all the issues the impressive number of ECW/TYW scenarios. At first, I was like, wow, great tons of stuff to game, but then I noticed many of the scenarios all seemed to be the same set piece battles.

That's why I wonder if the period has a disconnect between it's cerebral and visceral attractions and actually spending time wargaming the period.

I do spend rather a lot of money on getting armies together and have been contemplating the ECW which looks great at all scales between 6mm and 54mm (I love the King and Country ECW toy soldiers) but before I do dive in, rather thought I could get some encouragement from gamers who actually do either a lot of tabletop reenactments or counterfactual scenarios.

Actually, I am thinking of doing more Elizabethan Irish wars and early 80 years wars. That way, I can do either an ECW sort of battle or a more renaissance scenario with Irish unleashing the hounds on hapless English recruits.

What ECW rules did you use?

[SteveBurt]

The interest is in the combination of troop types, pike, shot, pistol armed horse, artillery, dragoons.
The rudimentary command and control can make it challenging.
For rules, having tried DBR. Field of Glory:Renaissance, To Defy a King and Regimenr of Foote (all perfectly good sets of rules), we've settled on 'For King and Parliament'

[Inkpaduta]

For Me, I have always found the 30YW interesting because of all the various nations and groups involved and that it was so long you can actually do the different phases of the war. You have mercenary leaders and armies. Bohemia electing their own king and starting it all. Battle of White Mountain. Followed by the various German Protestants and Lutherans raising armies to join in. Later here come the Swedes.
Also, the mixture of the units involved. Pikes, and muskets, various types of cavalry. Pure fun.

[vodkafan]

I got into the ECW because my friends wanted to play it and I had a participation game of Pikeman's Lament at Hammerhead, and later on a part in a For King And Parliament multiplayer game at Salute.  I have played a half-dozen games so far of PL . Admittedly, PL is a "light" set of rules but I have found interest in the way that the pikes can hold and dominate ground if given the chance and even sometimes win a battle. That's it in a nutshell for me really. Bit more interesting and tactical than Ancients, probably not as much fun as Napoleonics. We are still having fun with the rules and the figures are nice and colourful to paint up.

[FifteensAway]

Afraid the ECW event was over twenty years ago and the rule names are lost in the mist of time - maybe a Peter Pig set, maybe something called ECW, but that's all I recall and give no assurance of accuracy, no sir, not at all!   

[FierceKitty]

"Bit more interesting and tactical than Ancients, probably not as much fun as Napoleonics."

Amazing.

[Leman]

I think it is popular in the UK because it is very easy to research, there is often a battlefield virtually on the doorstep and there are two major, long-standing re-enactment groups. Yet with all that I still find I am more down to the century before and the century after. I have ECW troops awaiting paint but just can’t find the motivation to get on with them.

[has.been]

Leman I think you are right, but it also comes down to what 'floats your boat'.
I get a big kick out of ECW, especially the early war. A lot of bumbling amateurs
with a few professionals & gifted naturals mixed in. A scissors, paper, stone type of
warfare, pike musket & horse all good in the right conditions, but needing each other.

Looking back to what tipped me into interest I am sure it was reading one of Donald Fetherstone's
books. In it he detailed his clubs campaign game. Everyone was allowed to choose 3 units,
(Foot, horse, dragoons or cannon) Rupert types went for all cav. others for a mix. Then
on the campaign night the umpire set up the terrain & scenario, possibly along the lines of,
'the smallest side must hold the bridge & ford thereby denying access to the village.
Right then we need artillery, where is Tom? What do you mean he's gone on holiday!!

Although I have dreamed of such a campaign for some half a century now, I have
not YET managed to get there. Still having a lot of fun along the way though.

[tin shed gamer]

I don't play civil war any more. Simply a case of purging the collection to just 28's . I still toy with the idea of returning to it 28mm.
When I did play .We never played historical battles. Nor did we use just one scale.The campaign was played with Mighty Empires.(on a pre determined map.) Full armies (of different sizes and strength)were represented with Essex 15mm. But skirmishes were represented  28mm Foundry .We mainly used 1644 as it inclued skirmish rules.(If I remember rightly we also tried the warhammer historical when they came out.)
The thing that made the campaigns fun and last months was the effort put into mapping the campaigns each mighty empire tile had a corresponding map for a table top set up.
Allowing skirmish/scouting forces two tiles(mighty empire) of an army ment we weren't always pushing big armies around the table so it kept the whole thing interesting.
Giving a purpose to the skirmishes made it more interesting.
A draw ment both sides deployed the accompanying full armies for the next game on the same location as the skirmish no tactical advantage..
A minor victory ment your opponents full army's strength and next move had to be disclosed.
A total victory also ment the above and you could either force your opponents full army to withdraw or change direction for D4 turns.
Or force them into a battle with in the skirmish tile.Having gained the information on force strength and direction.
Once you add in multiple players and a random element of changing sides.Then wining the campaigns tends to get tricky.
These days I think your pretty much spoilt for choice when it comes to 28mm .So it's very tempting to ignore the world for a couple of months and start again.

[vodkafan]

"Bit more interesting and tactical than Ancients, probably not as much fun as Napoleonics."

Amazing.

Lol FierceKitty please explain?

[FierceKitty]

Ummm...ancients, you know? Hannibal and Alexander and Pyrrhus and Scipio and Epamindonas and Pelopidas and Surena and Attila...some people may consider it quite tactical.

[fred]

I’ve only recently got into ECW, and its probably down to the very good For King and Parliament rules.

The games we have played are very engaging and not at all one dimensional. We have had determined infantry holding off all comers, cavalry sweeping across the table, and off it, dithering commands, ineffectual artillery, all sorts. We have nearly always played a game at least based on a historical battle, and what has surprised me is the number of cavalry heavy engagements.

I am also interested in the early period of the Irish wars, and the later League of Augsburg periods, but finding anyone else who is interested in these is hard.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

TYW was the first period I got into for historical wargaming. I'd always been fascinated by the period and the conflict because it's a time of tremendous change and contradictions. It's a fascinating, complicated conflict, it's got this whole 'religious conflict but no, in fact it's about entirely mundane things, as always" thing, it's full of humanity (and human errors) and entirely inhuman behavior, it shows war for the horrible entity that it is, with people in between who mostly were horrible people (in fact most of the commanders' biographies read like a gangster film plot) who acted on political pressure and very often personal greed.

On the plus side: Really impressive trousers and hats.

I also really like the way pike and shot works together, the concepts of ancient warfare rediscovered and applied, and all of that. The tons of cavalry around, from the pretty much fully armoured cuirassiers of the first quarter of the century (just the idea of bascially a fullyx armoured knight, but with pistols... it's such a weird period in warfare). It's all a bit clumsy of course (not the least because formations were quite a lot bigger then), but these formations, carried out by experienced and well trained soldiers, were pretty darned flexible.

If you only want to play what's the most tactically challenging I think chess works the best. To me it's always the interest in the period and the oddities thereof that drives me to play a period. The TYW is just so interesting because of all of these new technologies and tactics emerging, but not yet quite being there to take the whole show over.