Are the figures really no better than a counter? Take a look at the picture below and decide for yourself.
 |
| Counter v 2mm casting. The casting wins! |
As for detail and the ability to paint them, well again a single picture is worth a thousand words as they say.
 |
| Some of those horses have forehead blazes and socks! Note the Infantry Battalia in the background. |
There is detail there and it can be picked out. Some castings are better than others but careful use of paint helps with the less detailed ones. The cavalry in the pictures are Armoured Pistoliers in three ranks of five. These are grouped three castings to a base with separate officers added by splitting open order cavalry bases down. It gives a look of mass and doesn't require the sacrifice of portraying the rear ranks. Cavalry are an area where 2mm really does come good. In larger scales I could never get the correct numbers of horse onto the table. In 2mm it becomes achievable.
Infantry castings moulded shoulder to shoulder are the basis of most of the rest of my ECW forces although I use some loose order for clubmen and will do the same for highlanders when I start onto the 1645 Montrose campaign figures. I also use those for ACW dismounted cavalry firing lines.
 |
| Six battalia of Foot each of 900 men |
 |
| Deployed in six ranks, note how long and thin the formation is |
The first thing which really struck me when I created these formations is how long the line is compared to it's depth. Most rule sets for larger scales get the frontage right for the ground scale, but have to exaggerate the formation depth to get the figures to fit the bases. Not a problem to depict in 2mm. It also starts to show why battalia were divided into smaller formations of around six files width.
To explain lets do some math! A NMA battalia aimed for a 2:1 shot to pike ratio (as seen above) and based upon pay returns I estimate that at Naseby they averaged about 900 men each after deploying supply train guards and the forlorn hope. So that gives 600 musketeers in two wings of 300 men and 300 Pikemen. The musketeers formed six ranks deep which means that each rank consists of 50 men. At the order they would deploy with one man every 3 feet. So a frontage of 50 yards. Imagine if using introduction fire (where the front rank fires and then retires to the rear to reload) making a single rank file around the entire 50 yard long block before the next rank can fire. Firepower would be dramatically reduced instead the single large block was divided into 'divisions' of between 4 - 6 files with a space between the divisions. Ranks moved from front to rear (or vice versa) using those spaces so they only had to traverse a maximum of 6 yards before moving to the rear. Allowing a further yard (or so) between divisions I have based each block of 100 musketeers on a 20 yard frontage (100 men in six ranks gives 16 and a bit men per rank plus 3-4 yards for the spaces or close enough to 20 yards).
The formation in the photos above are three blocks of 100 musketeers on each side of the pike blocks. The pike blocks are at close order so have half the frontage of the shot so overall the battalia has a frontage of 150 yards! Depth between ranks was almost always at 1.5 yards until pike blocks closed ranks before coming to close combat. So six ranks at 1.5 yards gives a depth of 9 yards. (I cheated and used 10 to make measuring bases easier). 2mm allows the use of more realistic unit foot prints than their larger brethren and starts to show up some of the command and control issues a battalia commander would face when all he has to transmit orders are drums and a good shouty sergeant!
Hopefully this post goes some way to showing that these castings are far better than counters and can be painted to a reasonable wargames standard without going blind!
Well you know I’m already sold on 2mm matey, but that long thin formation, deployed correctly as you’ve done there, is something to behold. As you say it shows in one picture the command and control issues that would result if trying complex manoeuvres. Very interesting post.
ReplyDeleteAfter some discussion on a Facebook 2mm site I dragged out my copy of Elton's drill manual. He shows a 'Regiment' with six or more companies deploying as two grand divisions after detailing off a number of musketeers as baggage guards. He also goes into some detail on balancing out the numbers in each grand division by swapping files around between companies. So the actual formations may be smaller than shown although Streeters illustrations of Marston Moor and Naseby and De Gommes royalist deployment sketches don't show split regiments (IIRC) but do show some merged ones.
ReplyDeleteOh and on command and control Elton has the Junior officers echoing orders along the block, just like we used to do in re-enacting!
This post has proven my view that rule writing causes you to reconsider what you thought you knew. Instead of battalia of 900 men it seems logical that they were split down into two smaller combat formations. I'm also having a slice of (slightly) humble pie as Streeters image of Naseby does show Pride's regiment split into two bodies. I'm coming to the view that 500 men may be the maximum infantry formation size. Cavalry may also have split large units down as I am reading that Covenanter units commonly deployed as two 'Squadrons' and on occasions if they were very large into three (from the Osprey on Auldearn).
DeleteThat's really interesting, a real insight into how things really might have looked. Amazing that you can do pretty much 1:1 scale. And indeed, they are more than mere counters!
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering why you chose 3 pike instead of one or two? Smaller battalia would enable a smaller table or more room for manoeuvre om the wings.
ReplyDeleteMy own 6mm units are all combined on one base. Fifteen pikes to 30 musketeers
those particular formations are an attempt to recreate the NMA at Naseby. They were formed in a 2:1 shot to pike ratio and from the pay returns seem to have averaged about 900 men per 'regiment' each block of pike represents 100 men in 6 ranks with two wings of 300 shot either side.
DeleteAfter a reread of Elton's drill manual I'm coming around to these large regiments perhaps fielding no more than 6 companies as a fighting formation. That would mean splitting larger formations down. I want to explore the actual issues in moving these bodies of troops around a battlefield. I have done it with small bodies of pike and shot as a re-enactor but that is more at the level of moving a 'corporalship of say 5 or 6 files around. The wargame table allows the issues with larger bodies of men to be gamed out. I use smaller bases to allow me to use the same castings to create deeper Dutch or Imperial style formations
In short smaller battalia would indeed make it much easier but that wasn't always how it was done in the 17th Century, or at least i don't think it was. My view is open to change as new information appears.