Post by erique on Oct 6, 2021 14:52:06 GMT
I thought that it would be interesting to make the HoTT ECW Semi-Historical more, well, historical, by separating the Pikes from Spears as their own troop type. I also want to do so with the least amount of changes necessary to achieve this end. The house rule is relatively short, but I've included a bit more rationale to explain the choices I made.
General rationale for rule. It seems necessary to make Pike separate from Spears to reflect the realities of combat in the ECW. They were a mainstay of the foot regiments, providing much needed anti-cavalry protection for the muskets as well as a strong melee capability vs other foot, at least while in good going. After all, if there was no real difference between pikes and spears, then the pike, which is more awkward to handle and requires more training to use, would not have been adopted over the spear. The exception in Ireland and Western Scotland proves the case. In both places the pike was often unofficially shortened to 12 to 15 feet to make it easier to handle in the increased rough terrain encountered. (To simulate this, such units should be rated as Spears). This was possible due to the relative lack of cavalry encountered as well as the increased need to operate in areas of bad going. However, the shortened pikes were at a disadvantage when they encountered troops wielding the full pikes, as the grumbling of the officers in the historical accounts can attest. In the rest of Britain and certainly on the continent, the large number of cavalry and relatively open terrain made the rationale for pikes compelling enough to remain part of the armies until the development of a viable bayonet for the muskets in the early 1700s.
That's it. Comments, thoughts, feedback welcomed!
ECW Pikes. These foot troops maneuver and fight in close order with 16-18 foot pikes. They are more effective than Spears in good going, while no better in bad going.
Unless otherwise noted, all Spear attributes and rule rules still apply to Pikes.
Change 1: Tactical Factors: Change "+1 If resolving close combat" to read "If spears or warband have a friendly element of the same type in full front edge contact with their rear edge, or if a single element of pike, and no element is in bad going."
Rationale: This emphasizes the advantage of the pikes fighting in good going, while showing their disadvantage in bad going (i.e., lose the +1 in close combat).
Rationale: This emphasizes the advantage of the pikes fighting in good going, while showing their disadvantage in bad going (i.e., lose the +1 in close combat).
Change 2. Combat Outcomes: Beaten by enemy but not doubled:
Change "Knights" to "Destroyed by behemoths, or by shooters, pikes, artillery, or magicians they have moved into contact with..."
Rationale: Makes it more dangerous for Knights to try to ride down Pikes like they can ride down Spears.
Change "Knights" to "Destroyed by behemoths, or by shooters, pikes, artillery, or magicians they have moved into contact with..."
Rationale: Makes it more dangerous for Knights to try to ride down Pikes like they can ride down Spears.
Change 3. Combat Outcomes: Beaten by enemy but not doubled:
Add "Pikes" to list after "Blades", as they share the same outcome: "Destroyed by Warband. If not, recoil."
Rationale: Reflects the Pikes greater ability to repel mounted attack than Spears, which can be ridden down by Knights. Also shows why Spears work better than Pikes in areas with higher concentrations of bad going, e.g., Ireland and Western Scotland.
General rationale for rule. It seems necessary to make Pike separate from Spears to reflect the realities of combat in the ECW. They were a mainstay of the foot regiments, providing much needed anti-cavalry protection for the muskets as well as a strong melee capability vs other foot, at least while in good going. After all, if there was no real difference between pikes and spears, then the pike, which is more awkward to handle and requires more training to use, would not have been adopted over the spear. The exception in Ireland and Western Scotland proves the case. In both places the pike was often unofficially shortened to 12 to 15 feet to make it easier to handle in the increased rough terrain encountered. (To simulate this, such units should be rated as Spears). This was possible due to the relative lack of cavalry encountered as well as the increased need to operate in areas of bad going. However, the shortened pikes were at a disadvantage when they encountered troops wielding the full pikes, as the grumbling of the officers in the historical accounts can attest. In the rest of Britain and certainly on the continent, the large number of cavalry and relatively open terrain made the rationale for pikes compelling enough to remain part of the armies until the development of a viable bayonet for the muskets in the early 1700s.
That's it. Comments, thoughts, feedback welcomed!
