Steve Cooney sent me an email, and was kind enough to include some photos, which are definitely worth a look, I think. Steve makes the point that, for devotees of Hinton Hunt, since tabletop Napoleonic battles normally feature large numbers of units, the small matter (literally) of keeping the footprint down, plus the limited availability of figures, mean that there has evolved a standard battalion size of two dozen or so figures. On the other hand, the smaller numbers of units needed for ECW actions have allowed Steve to experiment with larger regiment sizes, with greater emphasis on the look of the thing. His preferred unit size is 42-45 men for foot - you can see the effect in the pictures.
Nice, eh?
Thanks Steve - I for one am now crippled with envy, but I'll be all right...
That is an impressive sight!
ReplyDeleteAgreed - very impressive - that must also be a substantial proportion of the world's fund of HH ECW figures?
DeleteThat is indeed impressive. Is there such a thing as pike envy? I think I have it.
ReplyDeleteYou and me both, brother - absolutely!
DeleteThat is about how my ECW Foote are organized.... except that I found them too big for gaming, so now they make 2 units of 20 each! :-)
ReplyDeleteMy games wouldn't work with such big units, but it would be fun trying!
DeleteSweet
ReplyDeleteIt's lovely figures like these that almost ... almost ... tempt me into ECW. Fortunately I don't know a sausage about it, except for having watched Richard Harris in Cromwell a few times, and I'd have to start from scratch, so those are powerful antidotes to photos like these. Lovely work.
ReplyDeleteWith apologies for my Mr. Magoo moment earlier ( now deleted, thanks) These pics ( of lovely figures - great stuff!) got me to thinking about representing Pike and Shot period formations with figures. Assuming the depth was usually 6 ranks, then a 'battalia' of say 600 men ( I believe they might be made up of more than one regiment as these became depleted ) would therefore have a frontage of about 100 men. So the ratio of depth:width maybe 1:16 or so.. Which is actually much wider than would seem to look visually 'right' with figures. But of course, the figures might each represent 2 ranks deep by a number of files, depending on Steve's figure scale - does that change things? My head begins to spin. And of course, Steve may not be using a scale, just 'what looks about right' - which is indeed probably the best way..
ReplyDelete