COMMUNITY

Hundred Years war.
 
Notifications
Clear all

Hundred Years war.

Kieran Kirkham
(@kjartan1987)
Eminent Member

Hi to every one, so I've been working on a hundred years war list and i was using the barons war list as a basis and adapting it, now i have a core of units for the English and I'm in the middle of writing up historical characters. i thought i would just share the current working list of units I've written and once I've tested the list out a bit more i'll share it in the creation section. once im happy with the lists ill move on to the Scots and then the french and drop them all into the creation section.

so the English core units are the following 

Men at Arms Foot/mounted
Hobelars
Billmen
Warbow men foot/mounted

Now I've used men at arms as a catch all term as it can represent Knights, Esquires, retinue Men at arms and a host of other fighting men required by law to give military service and fund it them selves. Hobelars are light horse men used in a screening and skirmishing role in the English medieval army. The Billmen is also a catch all term used by me to represent the poorer warriors of the English Army who weren't mounted for either battle or movement. And lastly the English and Welsh war bow men,  now I've used a more modern historical term for what in the medieval period the English rolls of enlistment and charter are normally just referred to as either archers or mounted archers, how ever i wanted to make them different in name as most European nations of this period used or had some form of archer and technically most of the bows would have been a long bow by modern definition.

As for the generic commanders and historical characters i have the following, I've included what in the barons war list they would equate to roughly.

Marshal(baron)
Constable(lord)
Battle captain/senior knight(veteran Sargent)

historical characters are spread over the whole war and I've cherry picked my favourites because over the whole period you have a lot to choose from 

Edward of Woodstock, the prince of wales(most folks know him as the black prince)

William Bohun 1st Earl of Northampton

Thomas Beauchamp 11th earl of warwick

Reynold Cobham( more commonly known as Reginald Cobham)

Henry V, king of England

Richard Beauchamp 13th Earl of warwick 

Sir Thomas Erpingham

Sir Thomas Camoy

Now these are as i say just a rough out line of what I've got written and what is planned for the English list and i may reduce the historical character list but to be honest the french list is even longer. People are welcome to give me feed back on the current lists and ideas and once i drop the actual unit states in to the creation list along side the french and scots i would very much like to get peoples feed back so they can be tweaked. If people have any questions as to unit names or reasons I'm happy to discuss that as well in the non war gaming section of the forum.

 

armata potentia

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 29/11/2020 6:48 pm
Tonius
(@tonius)
Eminent Member

Great idea!

I also collect the Claymore Casting Early HYW miniatures and I was planning to remove them from the round bases and adapt them to Swordpoint, but now I am also thinking in using them for this ruleset.

About your commanders, I would create atleast one more option. A small change, but I would split a version of the Veteran sergeant to two entries. With the simple swap of Martial Respect to Chivalry, so that a Senior knight has the chivalry ability.

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 30/11/2020 9:20 pm
Kieran Kirkham
(@kjartan1987)
Eminent Member

@tonius, I've not removed the veteran sergeant commander I've renamed it to a more period styled name for the hundred years war. The point of using either a battle captain or a senior knight is weather you want to have a commoner or a noble leading your force. I'm not including chivalry in any english units because by the out break of the hundred years war, chivalry was limited as an ideal best left at the court along with the bards and troubadours. 

armata potentia

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 01/12/2020 8:51 am
Tonius
(@tonius)
Eminent Member
Posted by: @kjartan1987

@tonius, I've not removed the veteran sergeant commander I've renamed it to a more period styled name for the hundred years war. The point of using either a battle captain or a senior knight is weather you want to have a commoner or a noble leading your force. I'm not including chivalry in any english units because by the out break of the hundred years war, chivalry was limited as an ideal best left at the court along with the bards and troubadours. 

I am not talking about chivalry in that way. I am talking about the passive ability that is called "chivalry" in this ruleset. Which allows a model with this ability to charge a knight group that is not  the closest group and this without taking a morale test.

Thus if your rename Veteran Sergeant to Battle captain or senior knight than my point was that you should replace martial respect with chivalry because of the rule it represents. So that it can always charge knights (men-at-arms) without taking a morale test when that target is not the closest group. As it would make no sense that a "senior" knight would not have this ability.

 

 

 

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 01/12/2020 3:24 pm
Kieran Kirkham
(@kjartan1987)
Eminent Member

@tonius, I'm aware your on about the rule of chivalry as a passive ability but I'm not giving chivalry to the english. The mind set of if we see knights we charge knights which is a glorious and honourable thing compared to that unit of peasants who might be closer but it isn't glorious and honourable which is what the rule represents in its ability to some degree isnt how the the english really fought in this period. Once the list is done your welcome to add chivalry to units with the points increase the ability requires given that this is just the core army list idea for the english. 

armata potentia

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 02/12/2020 8:50 am
George Asling
(@george-asling)
Member Admin

Following with interest, give me a shout if I can help in any way.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 02/12/2020 4:24 pm
Tonius
(@tonius)
Eminent Member
Posted by: @kjartan1987

@tonius, I'm aware your on about the rule of chivalry as a passive ability but I'm not giving chivalry to the english. The mind set of if we see knights we charge knights which is a glorious and honourable thing compared to that unit of peasants who might be closer but it isn't glorious and honourable which is what the rule represents in its ability to some degree isnt how the the english really fought in this period. Once the list is done your welcome to add chivalry to units with the points increase the ability requires given that this is just the core army list idea for the english. 

Yes 🙂

But imo that is not what the rule "Chivalry" does in game.  It's not some kind of frenzy so that models with that rule has to charge the knights. Instead it adds an extra layer of tactical flexibility for models that have the chivalry rule.

All groups can chose to charge the not closest enemy group, but if they do they. They first need to succesfully pass a morale check. Models with the chivalry rule don't have to pass a morale check when that enemy group exists out of knights.

If your group of mounted knights (lance) see two enemy groups. One levy and one group of knights. The levy group is the closest, but they don't represent a threat to the knights, the group of enemy knights certainly represent a threat. Thus my knights have the choice to ignore the levy and go for the more dangerous group. Because of the chivalry rule, I don't have to do a morale check.

When you remove the chivalry rule, you can still charge the enemy knights, but than you first need to pass a morale check, because they aren't the closest group.

Or when your mounted knights see two enemy groups. The closest group are crossbowmen and the other are foot knights. The chivalry rule doesn't mean that I have to charge the knights. Infact in this situation it would be better to charge the crossbowmen, because imo these could be a bigger threat than the foot knights. So I can ignore the knights and go first for the crossbowmen.

In game "Chivalry" doesn't play... "look enemy knights.. charge for the glory and etc..."it is not some kind of frenzy rule. What it instead adds, is that it gives my well trained knights the possibilty / tactical freedom to chose their target without taking a morale check, when of one those enemy groups are knights. While less trained troops always do need to take a morale check first.

If you remove chivalry for the English you actually making them tactical weaker than non English knights.

Instead you could add to the mounted French knights (mounted) a new rule called "Impetuous". Which would be:

"Models with this special rule always need to charge enemy groups when they can (thus when there are enemy groups that are in range of movement + 6, than they need to try to charge them)  - If you don't want to charge you need to pass a morale check with a -2 modifier" This rule doesn't make the English knights weaker, but does make i.e French knight less relieable, because all they want to do is charging for the glory... . 😉

ReplyQuote
Posted : 02/12/2020 6:36 pm
Kieran Kirkham
(@kjartan1987)
Eminent Member

@tonius while i can understand what your saying chivalry as a rule becomes a slightly moot point if no units have it. My current thinking as units go is English Men at arms abilities are "resilient" and "drilled" for the green and regular and the veterans add "old soldiers" to their abilities  and French men at arms abilities are glory seekers, hardened, and martial training weather they're green, regular, or veteran. 

armata potentia

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 03/12/2020 10:00 am
Tonius
(@tonius)
Eminent Member

@kjartan1987

Hello,

This will be my last comment and than I just look forward to your final work. 🙂

Maybe renaming "chivalry" to something else seems a simplier solution, as the rule itself is good and makes a good distinction between elite melee troops and regular melee troops. The rule works fine from 11th century until 15th century.

Now it feels that you are removing / limiting the ability of customizing your troops by adding / forcing traits to a unit type wher ein you normally would have the choice to add or not to add a trait to make the group more to your liking and to reflect the story around your groups / retinue.

Now one special rule is replaced by two or three special rules. This will increase the cost per model. The extra traits will indirectly cause people to not add another trait to such a group, as such a group would become to costly compared to other unit types, thus limiting the customization / flavour that the player can add to its group / retinue.

 

And than there is the can of worms of why an English knight should have the traits drilled and resilient and a French knight should have martial training, glory seeker and etc.. While individualy all European knights would be more or less the same. What happened at Crecy and Agincourt does not represent the ability or skill of an individual knight. In Baron's war we are talking about a handful of knights / men-at-arms.

How the rules are designed I can't see a repeat of Crecy happening. 😉

 

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 03/12/2020 6:32 pm
Share:
Buy now