Ecw

Anyone played ECW armies?, we played "Peter Pig" rules again today, painfully slow after BBDBA .

Kingo

For ECW my favourite rules are DBR. Although I did like the old version I have come to paricularly appreciate the current version, 2.0.

DBR uses a points system. In complexity it lies somewhere between DBA and DBM. I find it a happy medium.

In DBR there are 2 ground scales/figure ratios that can be used, the normal and the condensed. The normal scale is typically played on a DBM 6'x4' board whereas the condensed scale with smaller armies can be played on a 3'x2' board. The condensed scale is a little bit simpler to play; for instance there is less rear support to take into consideration.

Although I have used (and enjoyed) DBR in the normal scale my personal preference is for the condensed scale, using smaller armies to give a game that is not a lot different in size or time to play from a DBA game.

The slight bugbear for ECW enthusiasts is that DBR covers from 1494 AD to 1700 AD, thus the army lists for the ECW are a bit generic. However, there are a couple of booklets called "De Bellis Civile" writen by Julian Lander and published by Keep Wargaming which are composed of actual scenarios from the Civil War with which included specific DBR army lists for each battle for both sides. One booklet covers 1642 to 1643 and the other covers 1644 to 1645.

I've heard good reports about File Leader - it's a fairly old set of rules but supposedly good for DBA size games.

Assuming you like DBA, and you're here after all then DBR in condensed scale may be what you are after. Yes it's a little generic - but in many ways no more so than DBA.

The 100 a.p. condensed scale games are definitely in the DBA style of game. Bigger games in condensed scale and the extra real battle books can help you play real scenarios.

It's fairly well balanced game (if played with similar armies in period - say ECW armies) and even though there are not regiments as such, the pip rules and support factors tend to make you play with somewhat historical. Well, if you want to be consistently successful that is. There were many real life non professional ECW commanders though so anything is possible.

Note, in the ECW the company was the smallest command unit - which models quiet well to a DBR element. From my limited reading DBR does a reasonable job of modeling the C&C at that level. So although some people do complain about the lack of regiment rules I'm actually not as concerned as some people.

Alternatively, the Humberside extensions add may of the DBR style elements into straight DBA if that appeals more. You can get those from the web, but they still don't have any rules around regiments- but they do have combined pike/shot elements so solve the potential issue that way.

The advantage with either is the generic nature - you can then expand from ECW to the Thirty Years War and even further with ease.

I have file leader and although I have only skimmed the rules not played them I was not that impressed to move from DBR. There are many other rules sets out there as well, but if you like DBA I suggest DBR.

I support the comments of Richard about DBR. This is much easier to follow than DBM (DBMM). It allows for both big games and small games. Condensed rules are for bigger battles but when played with 100-150 points give excellent small games.

Our local group has played tens (a hundred, even) of DBR games, all round the world, Moguls to Pirates and American Indians, and during the full time period, from Fornovo to Boyne. All the games have been fun but I do prefer those exotic eastern battles with just about every troop type being used. The ECW is sort of boring with just shot, pike, pistols, dragoons, and artillery.

We have tried to use "De Bellis Civile" , but the lack of scale information makes it almost impossible to recreate the games.