Page 1 of 1
Why are no veteran royalists ?
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:43 pm
by switze01
Hi
Seems a bit unfair that the royalist foot at naseby are not rated as vets
They were pushing the new model back up the hill until cromwells ironsides
hit them up the rear
Were all the new model poor then ?
I re enact parliament so have no royalist bias at all - it just seems a bit unrealistic.
Steve
Re: Why are no veteran royalists ?
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:51 pm
by nikgaukroger
switze01 wrote:Hi
Seems a bit unfair that the royalist foot at naseby are not rated as vets
They were pushing the new model back up the hill until cromwells ironsides
hit them up the rear
Were all the new model poor then ?
I re enact parliament so have no royalist bias at all - it just seems a bit unrealistic.
Steve
May I draw your attention to the "Veteran foot regiments or commanded out musketeers" in the list from 1644 onwards ...
Vets at naseby
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:36 pm
by switze01
fAIR ONE - most of the royalist foot at naseby vets then
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:14 am
by deadtorius
superior = vets
Expensive but especially when it comes to the cav it makes a difference between them staying around forever or running away quickly. So far we have only been doing 600 point games so I can't get too much superior foot on the table since the superior cav is so expensive but necessary.
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:50 am
by Blathergut
eheheheheehehehehe....but not for me! eheheheheheheeee
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:05 am
by deadtorius
Bloody poodle hating Parliamentarians.......
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:14 am
by timmy1
Don't have to be a Roundhead to hate poodles...
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:59 am
by david53
timmy1 wrote:Don't have to be a Roundhead to hate poodles...
Sure the covenanters did'nt like them either just think 200,000 pounds scots for a king more if he has a dog with him..........