Having spent my entire life on the west coast of North America, I know very little about the ECW . . . but I have developed an urge to game it.

On the ECW forum on TMP I've asked about rule sets . . . and someone just suggested BLB . . . has anyone tried this? If so, how well did it work? What changes (if any) did you make to give it an ECW flavor?


-- Jeff

Jeff,

I hung off responding to see if anyone else had done so.
Alas not

Here is my twa'penneth..

You could use it but i would require the following changes(easy to make):

1. Alteration in charge conditions.. ie infantry would be able to charge non SHAKEN enemy
2. Factor modifications for melee combat dependant on the ratio of pikes to musket (easy to do)
3. Alteration of formations(perhaps) to take into account deeper pike blocks but this may only crop up in TYW games with tercios.
4. May be some factor mods for Swedes.

Alternatives are:

1644.. I always liked 'em
or of course

Victory without Quarter written by some obscure backwoodsman from Virginia...

Now did we talk about a project relating to these rules getting the BLB/R2E treatment?

Just a short comment on using BLB for ECW.

I don't want the same rule system for every period I play. I like variety. One thing that makes BLB so refreshing to me, is that it is unique.

For ECW I use WECW and have played 1644, DBR and other systems. Why would I want to use WECW for the late 17th and early 18th centuries when I can use BLB? I realize that other gamers like a system and feel comfortable with it. I like the variety and how an author trys to model a period of great interest to him. Ancient gaming rules are the worst of example of rule-creep. In trying to cover battle over 2500 years they have to compromise to cover all the variety over those years. BLB has no such problem and the finished product is proof. Come on. Marlborough himself would never use BLB for anything but his own campaigns!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Mike B

I''ve played them all and for me victory without quarter is the stand out set.The event table is hilarious ,and i can honestly say that we have never had a bad game with them.
iain

Mike,

I tend to agree with you for a variety of reasons. BLB was written to cover a very particular period. I have adopted the same thinking with Republic to Empire which covers only 25 years. It makes the rules focus on precisely the detail level which period enthusiasts look for. That is why I do not feel any nervousness about releasing at the same time as Black Powder which although I am sure will be an excellent publication covers 200 years of warfare.. almost but not quite matchlocks to machineguns.

I am being lobbied quite heavily by several people to issue a SEVEN YEARS WAR version of BLB. I must admit that there is enough commonality to make this a less disastrous project than say going back 100 years. It is a possibility then that SYW version of BLB will arrive at some point. If not as a full blown rule book as a supplement.
As for the ECW/TYW.. well, Mr Harrison already has a fine rules set prepared, Ian's comments atest. We have toyed with the commercial publication of an extended VWQ to cover the TYW.

Pushing BLB back 70 years would probably not satisfy the pike question to a level I would be happy with...

Interesting debate. I would be keen to hear the views of other forum members..

I should point out that I've played and enjoyed Clarence Harrison's "Victory Without Quarter".

My problem with it is that my regular opponent does not like them. He seriously disagrees with certain aspects of the rules.

Hence, I'm looking for what other SIMPLE rules will provide a good game for the period.


-- Jeff

"My problem with it is that my regular opponent does not like them. He seriously disagrees with certain aspects of the rules."

.............. It might help if we knew what he objected to and what you guys are looking for. There aren't many ECW rules I haven't tried. Maybe we can find what you're looking for.

Mike B

I have always enjoyed my games with WECW but they haven't taken off in my club. The big rule set there are Very Civil Actions by The Perfect Captain which give a fun game but again there are probably elements of the rules that wouldn't please everyone. I did email Clarence a while back for a copy of his rules and so far he hasn't gotten back to me.
He's probably not talking to me after all the rule changes I kept getting Barry to do on R2E.

Personally I prefer period specific rules rather than a set that covers 200 or more years of warfare.

Cheers
Dave

I have never played WECW. I am a touch Warhammer phobic as I think the ancients rules are pretty ridiculous but I believe that WECW has element of 1644 in it?? Maybe be mistaken there though...
I have also in the past tired Forlorn Hope which were ok but in some respects slightly abstract.
I think often, period feel and fun are more important that authenticity and mechanical perfection.. in saying that though I could be open to a charge of hypocrisy re: WARHAMMER

Unfortunately i have played warhammer ecw but it always seemed to become a fire fight at ridiculous ranges, and characters which were ridiculous.
As for simple rules i would have thought that victory without quarter would definitely fall into that catogary i do'nt think the mechanics could be any simpler.The fact it is card driven gives it a sense of unpredictability which I am coming round to in lot more of my gaming
iain

Iain,

you might just talk CH and I into going for it with VWQ!

mikeb,

It has been some time so I don't recall all of Murdock's complaints . . . but one that I do recall had to do with shooting.

As written when a unit's card is pulled one of its options is to shoot. Murdock insisted that BOTH the unit whose card was pulled AND it's target must get to shoot. So we played it that way (even although the rules specified differently).

Later I got to play the rules again vs someone else and we played them as written. I felt that this produced a better game . . . more back-and-forth . . . and it meshed well with some of the other game mechanics.

But Murdock can be insistant . . . so I'm looking for another rule set. What I want is something with fairly simple mechanics. I don't want to have to constantly be checking charts or making calculations. I also most especially want to find some rules that capture the SPIRIT of the period.


-- Jeff

......... Well I am certainly not here to try to defend any ruleset. Rules are like women; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for WECW; If you are interested in flavor and fun then I suggest you get the rule book and give it a try. This rule set is all about fun. There are very few characters in the game, and in fact you can ignore them if you so choose. A typical regiment of foot has around 36-48 figures divided into three sub-units; a pike center and 2 shot sleeves. You can choose the pike to shot ratio you want to model for each unit. Horse are in units of 6-16 or more models. There is indeed a lot of Warhammer in the rules, as the game mechanics are based on their fantasy rules. But keep in mind, minus the magic, the Warhammer world is set in a Renaissance like time. The author of WECW is a re-enactor and there are a lot of period specific rules. IMHO, it is a much better product that WAB or any of their other historical rules. There is room for improvement with the game but all in all, it gives a fun gaming experience. Now where else can a darn minister mess up your best plan of attack?

I will post a few pictures of some of my WECW games when I get a chance, so you can see what it looks like.

Mike B

Barry wrote
[/quote]
I was actually suprised you did'nt go for it after blb the only things which need dealt with are highlanders an mechanics for dragoons and lancers which at the moment we use house rules for.
iain

Even though Murdock doesn't care for them, I'd very much like to see a "expanded" version of VICTORY WITHOUT QUARTER.


-- Jeff