1644 for the TYW

For topics related to wargaming in the period 1600-1660
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5866
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

1644 for the TYW

Post by barr7430 » Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:32 pm

Paul Mc and I had a splendid game recently using my TYW collection and the very solid 1644 rules. I had forgotten how much I enjoyed both the rules and the period... topping stuff, lots of cavalry charges and push of pike. We even managed to get a raw unit of imperialist foot breaking the veteran Swedish Red Regiment AND killing their Commander in chief!!!

Roll on th Tercios! 8)
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
londonjock
Private
Private
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:57 am
Location: West london

Post by londonjock » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:21 am

Barry - any idea where I can pick up a copy of the rules ? - I can't say I've heard of them, but I could do with a decent set of TYW rules. My Saxons need to get out more, instead of pretending to be English Royalists :lol:

Thanks
Iain
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5866
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:53 am

Iain,

Paul and I had exactly the same discussion whilst playing the game. I belieive they are now out of print but copies can be obtained from Partizan Press(link on this site's Links page).

They are the forerunner of ECWarhammer and although I have never played the latter, I suspect are probably superior as I think the 'Warhammer' series of rules was a cross over-marketing ploy to get fantasy gamers into historical and sell more models.

1644 are strictly speaking an ECW rule set it's just that we played more TYW than ECW and so produced a variety of simple amendments and house rules dealing with

1. troop types
2. Charges
3. Melees


No huge deviations from the norm but enough to create a different 'feel'. I will definitely post them in the Warchest soon as last week's game rekindled my latent interest in the period!!!

B :D
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
sharnydubs
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland

1644 rules

Post by sharnydubs » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:06 pm

Guys, I have a copy of these rules if you need to borrow.

You see them occasionally on Ebay or at the shows. You may also be able to get a set from Dave Ryan at Caliver books.

Peter
Peter

"The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky"
londonjock
Private
Private
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:57 am
Location: West london

Post by londonjock » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:36 pm

Thanks guys, I have found a copy on the net. Looking forward to trying them out :D
PaulMc
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:53 pm
Location: Scotland

Thirty Years War

Post by PaulMc » Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:53 pm

Hi All,

Well, absolutely brilliant game last Sunday. I have to echo everything Barry has said, but he has been very kind to me by not mentioning my truly dreadful misuse of my Cuirassiers. I moved them from one flank to another whenever I perceived a threat, what on earth was I thinking about! They ended up having very little impact on the proceedings at all :oops: .
My commander being killed by that raw regiment was pretty funny though.

Thems the breaks

PaulMc
"We shall attack across the minefield, under cover of daylight!"
azeroth
Captain
Captain
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: Bellshill, Lanarkshire
Contact:

Post by azeroth » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:00 am

Shame on you mr McC You have a copy of the rules, or you did have lol

IanB
A moth eaten rag on a worm eaten pole
It does not look likely to stir a man's soul
'Tis the deeds that were done 'neath the moth eaten rag
When the pole was a staff and the rag was a flag.

E Hamley
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5866
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:14 pm

Being a bit hard on yourself Paul I think, I am sitting here in Heathrow bored out of my t*** so decided to see what was the goss!
I thought you played a good game with the see-saw battle between our cavalry on the Swedish right flank going anybody's way until the last round. I also thought that the infantry battle in the centre had the same uncertainty. I actually think that collection and those rules would be great as an introduction to 28mm historical gaming for the guys at DTS.

Maybe I'll arrange a game and talk to Dave.... :idea:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
gonzo
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Lunds, Sweden

Post by gonzo » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:52 pm

Hi,

using the 1644 rules how would a swedish "t-brigade" be represented? I was just wondering 'cause I have a number of un-based TYW figures and I would like to know how to base them for 1644. Does anyone here know the answer?

Regards,

Viktor
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:24 am

Viktor,

I've never played 1644, but I do have a copy of the rules. I dug them out and this is a quote from page 4 of the 1990 edition (probably the only one):


"BASES -- All models should be based on square or rectangular pieces of stiff card, board, or other suitable material. Each base is equivalent in area to the ground covered by the 030 to 40 men represented by each model. The use of bases not only greatly eases the effort of moving models but also prevents them falling over during the game. Many players will already possess armies, undoubtably based in a preferred way. So long as both siders are based in a similar manner there is no need to rebase figures, as the rules will work perfectly well irrespective of base sizes.

"The following base sizes are those used by the author and have the added advantage of being available as plastic slottabases from Citadel Miniatures:

All foot figures -- 20mm Frontage x 20mm Depth
All mounted figures -- 25mm Frontage x 50mm Depth

"Artillery crewmen should be based individually on 20mmx20mm bases. Guns may be mounted on a base of any convenient size or left unbased, this is up to the player.

.... "FORMATIONS -- Units normally form up with models in base-to-base contact, making a solid formation of one or more ranks with all models facing in the same direction. All ranks contain as many models as the front rank, unless there are insufficient models in the unit to fill the rearmost rankcompletely. For example, a unit of 16 men may be formed into a single rank 16 long, two ranks 8 long, and three ranks with 6 in the first two ranks and 4 in the rear."


Viktor, the text then goes on to speak of figure removal (from rear rank since troops are presumed to filter forward). So, simple answer is that figures are based individually.

By the way, I heartily recommend using commercially available steel plates under each figure's base and then builing "standard" bases covered with sheet magnets so that figures hold nicely until removed.

I hope that this helps you.


-- Jeff "Bluebear" Hudelson
gonzo
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Lunds, Sweden

Post by gonzo » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:56 am

Excellent, thanks for the info.

/Viktor
pappenheimuk
Command Sergeant Major
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 am
Location: Greenock, Scotland

1644 & ebay

Post by pappenheimuk » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:29 pm

I spotted acopy of 1644 on ebay price is sitting at £1.99 if anyones intersets?

Item number: 8775807612
"Anything but a one and you'l be OK!!!"
londonjock
Private
Private
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:57 am
Location: West london

1644

Post by londonjock » Wed May 17, 2006 9:57 am

Used 1644 last night for the first time, and was very impressed. We fought a "what if?" action from 1610 (see the TYW/ECW forum for more details) with some house amendments relating to the period, and everyone had a great time.
Thanks to every one who recommended the rules.

Iain
Anonymous

Post by Anonymous » Fri May 19, 2006 8:37 pm

Barry,

I just thought I'd add a couple of comments to yours and everyone else's thoughts on "1644". I think they're a great set of rules. It's been a while since I used them, but when I read Londonjock's description of the siege of Julich, I dug out my notes of a few amendments we'd tried in some games a few years back. (We used them in a Grand Alliance game for which we were trying out "1644" ("1694"??), but the idea would work also for ECW or TYW).

One of the things I really like about the rules is their focus on the command status of each unit, which deteriorates as the battle progresses, subject to units being reformed. One thing which was left out, perhaps to avoid slowing down the the game, was any command limitations as regards the generals of the respective forces.

Without wanting to alter the rules too, we tried to add some characteristics for generals into the mix, designating the generals of each side as being either Professional, Rash or Cautious (legacies of Mr George Gush's WRG 2nd Edition rules of happy memory!!).

A Professional general was, well, professional and could place charge and reform intention counters in the Intention Phase pretty much as mentioned in the rules on page 8.

A Rash general was required to place at least two charge markers each move on units which were within charge range of an enemy and which were capable of charging. A reform counter could only be placed by the Rash general to the extent that at least one charge intention counter had been placed by the general in the same Intention Phase.

A Cautious general could place a maximum of two charge intention markers each turn. However, once the general had placed his first charge intention marker in the Intention Phase, he would loose the potential to place a second charge marker if his army contained a unit with disrupted or lost command – the logic behind this, from what I can recall, was that the Cautious general would prioritise reforming the disordered unit in preference to pressing forward an attack.

Well, that was it! Nothing earth shattering, but I remember they provided a bit of extra entertainment and made the battles quite a bit more difficult to control.

We also tried a game when rash generals were required to place a charge marker on a unit within charge range of any enemy unit which had just rallied (as on page 20 of the rules) in the last phase of the previous move. I think this proved a step too far and we didn't repeat it. My memory's a bit hazy, but I think we ended up with half the French Horse routing some newly-rallied Dutch militia battalions off the table, and the French foot subsequently getting stomped on by the rest of the Alliance while the chevaliers were trying to get back onto the table!

Now that would be an interesting topic….."Wargaming rules which I thought were a good idea but didn't quite work"!! :D

All the best,

Adam
User avatar
simon
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Buckinghamshire
Contact:

Post by simon » Thu May 17, 2007 9:34 pm

I am thinking of gaming the TYW, maybe using the warhammer ECW rules, can I use them straight'out of the box' or does anyone have any suggestions should any alterations be required?
Thanks in advance
Simon
Post Reply