Dukeing it out further west William Waller and more importantly Ralph Hopton's Royalists would be less well supplied. Waller would be around the 2;1 but with some 3;2 in the poorer units. Hopton better quality troops would be 2;1 BUT his majority of troops could well be represented fairly by 3;2. The Royalist Cornish were a rule unto themselves and should be 1;1 at best and even 1;2 . The Cornish were rightly famed for getting stuck in hard and fast but they were so poorly provisioned with guns they had to melee or just stand around throwing rocks and insults! Perhaps give them a bonus for aggression but don't do the Truro Terccio Tank approach.
Here up North again things were different before 1644. At the battle of Whalley for example the Parliamentarian foot were described in current reports as "being mainly firemen" ie musketeers. Units on both sides could be fielded as 3;1 or even 1;0 unless recreating formal battle (3;2 being a better ratio here). The reason for this is almost certainly the close nature of the terrain, lanes, stone walls and woods dominating the terrain particularly in east Lancashire making formal cavalry actions and therefore the need for big pike blocks unnecessary. Much of the war up here was hit n run raiding and siege. The none shot troops hand to hand dice should be much the same as the musketeers.
As to cavalry: Not all pre New Model Parliament horse stood to receive charges. Post 1642 try a middle way allowing the Parliament to countercharge but not giving them the Galloper light cavalry move. Also allow the horse to be poorly equipped in your early armies and perhaps those representing the Southwest and North by dropping their armour save.
Ok thats my initial salvo.
Happy to recieve corrections and insights. If asked I will have a stab at a regional list or two.Rook
