Having seen the very impressive Towton game at Salute - but did not have the time to stop and chat to the team - I wondered whether they (or indeed anyone else out there) had any views on the use of Poleaxed 2 for WOTR in 6mm?
The angle I am coming from is this. As far as I can see, the most notable feature of P2 is that it treats each noble's contingent as, effectively, a combined arms team. Other rule systems, to a greater or lesser degree, tend to assume a more functional division of forces: at its most extreme, the FoG battlegroup system with all the longbowmen over here in this BG, all the billmen here in this BG, and all the fully harnessed nobs over there in that BG. P2 instead has each captain keeping his retinue together, with the archers advancing or withdrawing through the bills and men-at-arms as necessary.
Now, it seems to me that this is arguably a much more realistic mechanism. My concern is the frontage to depth issue - at least in terms of aesthetics. A large contingent, in P2 28mm/15mm terms, envisages a frontage of eight figures, with up to five ranks: one of fully or partly harnessed men at arms, two of bills, and two of longbows. So, an eight by five block.
But translate this into, say, 60x30mm stands of The One True Scale. Say, three ranks of 12 figures. If one simply substitutes one stand of 36 figures for each rank of eight in the P2 contingent, your large contingent ends up having a frontage of 12 and a depth of 15. A column, rather than a line of battle. Even if you space out the figures, and only have two ranks, the physical area covered is still in a proportion of width:depth of 1:2.5, which does not seem right. Now, I think I am right that for the Towton project, Ruarigh and Co used two 60x30 stands for each rank of eight figures. En masse, with all those thousands of little men, it did not look too wrong in terms of proportion on the table. But that was probably due to the vast size of the armies.
Of course, one might say that the answer is to simply reduce the depth in numbers of stands. But that then leads to difficult choices in representing the proportions between each element of a retinue. If one only had a depth of three stands, one would essentially have harnessed infantry:billmen:archers in a ratio of 1:1:1 rather than 1:2:2. And the contingent would still be fifty percent deeper than it would be wide. Also, the smaller contingents, which are perhaps only two or three ranks deep in 28mm/15mm scale, become equally problematic.
So, I would invite your views. Am I getting hung up on a perceived rather than a real issue? Does it play (and feel) OK with these deep contingents, even if one is playing the smaller actions? Is there a better set of rules? (I like the fact that there is no figure removal in P2, and, as I say, treating contingents as the building block of each army.) Should I just get a life?