Scots Royalist/ Covenanat

[marshalney2000]

Richard, thank you for tidyingup the list in to the accepted form.
I think we are getting close to the Royalist army. My only changes would be :
Irish: I don't think adding the swdsmen capability does it for me in isolation particulaly as you yourself highlighted in an earlier post that this did little for them unless the opposition was disrupted. If we can make them superior then I can just about live with it. A bit of a deal breaker this one.

Moss troopers: We need to add an optional troop category for this in 1644 and 1645: lh, avge, up, lance, pistol. 0 to 4

Strathbogie Regiment: optional troop category in 1645 only mf, up, musket superior 0-4 and 0-2 hf, up,pike. Total 0 to 6.

I see that the Scots Covenanters have yet to be updated by Nik in the light of various discussions on the following:

- Rating of horse i.e. more average
- Moss troopers - average
- different category for 1644 army in England.
John

[nikgaukroger]

Richard, thank you for tidyingup the list in to the accepted form.
I think we are getting close to the Royalist army. My only changes would be :
Irish: I don't think adding the swdsmen capability does it for me in isolation particulaly as you yourself highlighted in an earlier post that this did little for them unless the opposition was disrupted. If we can make them superior then I can just about live with it. A bit of a deal breaker this one.

As you've indicated that a lot of their opposition was Poor then if they are Average they will outshoot them quite nicely with a good chance of disruption. IMO this is quite enough.

[marshalney2000]

Later on quite a lot of the opposition in the major battles was average so does not give them much if any real edge.
John

[marshalney2000]

Nik, are you happy with small mosstrooper unit for Montrose in 1644 and 1645 as suggested?
John

[nikgaukroger]

Later on quite a lot of the opposition in the major battles was average so does not give them much if any real edge.
John

A capability that gives you a PoA in melee is quite significant IMO. OK you need the enemy to be not steady if they are a pike & shot BG but if they are it is very effective.

IMO it also works well in representing that the Irish would only be sent in sans pikes and muskets after some time rather than ASAP which is what would be likely if they are also Superior.

Lastly I am very wary with a list that is marginally justifiable on the ground of army size we create something too efective due to the extreme scaling, so will err on the side of caution.

However, there is still enough time for discussion and I'm not saying that the list is now closed so ...

[nikgaukroger]

Nik, are you happy with small mosstrooper unit for Montrose in 1644 and 1645 as suggested?
John

Probably - just missed it when I did the list revisions.

[marshalney2000]

Nik, not sure I have many other arguments to add to the Irish cause other than to perhaps pull together a summary of the main points as I see it:
1 The Irish were professional soldiers many with experience of the TYW.
2 They were recognised by their contemporaries as being a notch above.
3 They seem to have been skilled in a number of different fighting styles and tactics e.g. Letting the covenanting cavalry go through them before turning and firing into their rear and also charging into a cavalry melee at Alford to hamstring the horses with their dirks thereby helping their own horse win the melee. They also thinned their lines in one battle to utilise salvo tactics.
4 I find it difficult to see them any less superior than some English Royalist units granted this status. They were not the Coldstream guards but they were professional mercenaries.
5 The were the mainstay of the Royalist army in Scotland and were the main contributing factor to the majority of Montrose's victories.

Like yourself I do not want to create an unrealistic supertroop but do not think the balance is tipped due to the small number of Irish possible and also the fact that having bought them even to the maximum the rest of the figures the army will be more substantial and generally of troop types who would be meat and drink to most other pike and shot armies of any quality particularly where they have reasonable cavalry in any numbers. As for the small size of the armies many of the actions in Scotland were no smaller than some south of the border at this time. As you know not every English battle was a Naseby or Marston Moor.
Mlud, the defence rests.
John