Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of specific
nationalities to
fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or formational
innovation like
some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more fighting
power on
each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops "better"
in a generic
but balancing way.

This is not a question about basic rules for weapons - warrior states clearly
that fighting
ranks are meant to encourage the use of historical depth, itself important in
front rank
fighting power because of its psychological effect and the ability of deep ranks
to replace
fallen front rankers. This is *specifically* a question about the list rules
allowing 1.5 rank
fighting. Different because with the list rules it is based on nationality and
not on weapon
type or time of use (1st contact etc.).

Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules. My
problem is that
when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in 1.5
ranks and
mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause they're like
ah . . . better."

Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who knows
the answer or
has any insight into it.

Jonathan

I'll take a stab at part of it but I'm sure there are more reasons. In the
old rules (WRG) some troops were allowed a wedge formation that fought more
figures across an element's width than the standard block formation. Rather
than continue the old debate about who's lance calvary was superior or if
some ancient writer's reference to"... they charged like lions..." meant
wedge formation and thus deserved the option to use the special wedge
formation, the new and better rule (at least I like it better) is that all
lance calvary fights rank and a half.

John and Scot I'm sure can give you more detailed reasons about why but at
least here's part of the story that has gone on before.

Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:51 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?


> List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of
> specific nationalities to
> fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or
> formational innovation like
> some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more
> fighting power on
> each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops
> "better" in a generic
> but balancing way.
>
> This is not a question about basic rules for weapons - warrior states
> clearly that fighting
> ranks are meant to encourage the use of historical depth, itself important
> in front rank
> fighting power because of its psychological effect and the ability of deep
> ranks to replace
> fallen front rankers. This is *specifically* a question about the list
> rules allowing 1.5 rank
> fighting. Different because with the list rules it is based on
> nationality and not on weapon
> type or time of use (1st contact etc.).
>
> Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules.
> My problem is that
> when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in
> 1.5 ranks and
> mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause
> they're like ah . . . better."
>
> Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who
> knows the answer or
> has any insight into it.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up on it
in Hans
Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
spearpoint shape
than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It didn't
put more
guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace fallen
front
rankers because there were som many ranks behind.

Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON, but
based
on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without lance,
fight in
1.5 ranks.

So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
formational
doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
frontage (and if
so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better" in a
generic but
game balancing way?

Thanks, though, again for the response.

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jamie white" <jamiep.white@...> wrote:
>
> I'll take a stab at part of it but I'm sure there are more reasons. In the
> old rules (WRG) some troops were allowed a wedge formation that fought more
> figures across an element's width than the standard block formation. Rather
> than continue the old debate about who's lance calvary was superior or if
> some ancient writer's reference to"... they charged like lions..." meant
> wedge formation and thus deserved the option to use the special wedge
> formation, the new and better rule (at least I like it better) is that all
> lance calvary fights rank and a half.
>
> John and Scot I'm sure can give you more detailed reasons about why but at
> least here's part of the story that has gone on before.
>
> Jamie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:51 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
>
>
> > List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of
> > specific nationalities to
> > fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or
> > formational innovation like
> > some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more
> > fighting power on
> > each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops
> > "better" in a generic
> > but balancing way.
> >
> > This is not a question about basic rules for weapons - warrior states
> > clearly that fighting
> > ranks are meant to encourage the use of historical depth, itself important
> > in front rank
> > fighting power because of its psychological effect and the ability of deep
> > ranks to replace
> > fallen front rankers. This is *specifically* a question about the list
> > rules allowing 1.5 rank
> > fighting. Different because with the list rules it is based on
> > nationality and not on weapon
> > type or time of use (1st contact etc.).
> >
> > Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules.
> > My problem is that
> > when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in
> > 1.5 ranks and
> > mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause
> > they're like ah . . . better."
> >
> > Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who
> > knows the answer or
> > has any insight into it.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Bill Chriss]

> Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up
> on it in Hans
> Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
> spearpoint shape
> than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It
> didn't put more
> guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace
> fallen front
> rankers because there were som many ranks behind.
>
> Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON,
> but based
> on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without
> lance, fight in
> 1.5 ranks.
>
> So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
> formational
> doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
> frontage (and if
> so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better"
> in a generic but
> game balancing way?


Since this is not a rules question, I'll give my take on part of it,
although my reason for being satisfied with the rule may be entirely
different than FHE's justification for it.

The answer to your question is basically yes. With respect to some JLS
armed cav, there were formations uniquely used that improved their combat
effectiveness, i.e., Thessalian HC wedge or LC rhomboid. Others were
pretty universally acknowledged as tactically superior in a way not
reflected in the weapon hit charts, i.e., late classical Tarantines, or
Mongols.

While I might have a historical quibble here or there, I think this
generally makes the game better and more nuanced than it would be
otherwise. AND REMEMBER, the games design philosophy of FHE (as I, an
outsider, appreciate it from reading here) is to correctly reflect/balance
HISTORICAL opponents IN PERIOD. Viewed in that light, these list rules (or
something much like them) is almost indispensible to doing the job right,
although each of us may find a list rule or two we think goes too far or
not far enough.

While in a tournament format I agree that Mongols appear quite optimal in
their bang for the buck-so much so that I even resent some of their
advantages--as I understand it, the only thing that stopped the Mongols IN
PERIOD for about a hundred years, with a couple of minor exceptions, was
that the khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia to crown a new
one. However, this era is certainly not my specialty!


-Greek

So what specifically was happening in a mongol light cavalry or classical
tarantine charge?
What was more effective at putting fighting power on the frontline of these two
armies'
light cav?

Also, I never did understand how a rhomboid would increase fighting power -
maneuverability maybe?

I ask because:

1) I am curious

2) new players as me and I want to be able to give an intelligent answer.

thanks for all the info!

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up
> > on it in Hans
> > Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
> > spearpoint shape
> > than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It
> > didn't put more
> > guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace
> > fallen front
> > rankers because there were som many ranks behind.
> >
> > Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON,
> > but based
> > on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without
> > lance, fight in
> > 1.5 ranks.
> >
> > So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
> > formational
> > doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
> > frontage (and if
> > so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better"
> > in a generic but
> > game balancing way?
>
>
> Since this is not a rules question, I'll give my take on part of it,
> although my reason for being satisfied with the rule may be entirely
> different than FHE's justification for it.
>
> The answer to your question is basically yes. With respect to some JLS
> armed cav, there were formations uniquely used that improved their combat
> effectiveness, i.e., Thessalian HC wedge or LC rhomboid. Others were
> pretty universally acknowledged as tactically superior in a way not
> reflected in the weapon hit charts, i.e., late classical Tarantines, or
> Mongols.
>
> While I might have a historical quibble here or there, I think this
> generally makes the game better and more nuanced than it would be
> otherwise. AND REMEMBER, the games design philosophy of FHE (as I, an
> outsider, appreciate it from reading here) is to correctly reflect/balance
> HISTORICAL opponents IN PERIOD. Viewed in that light, these list rules (or
> something much like them) is almost indispensible to doing the job right,
> although each of us may find a list rule or two we think goes too far or
> not far enough.
>
> While in a tournament format I agree that Mongols appear quite optimal in
> their bang for the buck-so much so that I even resent some of their
> advantages--as I understand it, the only thing that stopped the Mongols IN
> PERIOD for about a hundred years, with a couple of minor exceptions, was
> that the khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia to crown a new
> one. However, this era is certainly not my specialty!
>
>
> -Greek
>

[Bill Chriss]

> So what specifically was happening in a mongol light cavalry or classical
> tarantine charge?
> What was more effective at putting fighting power on the frontline of
> these two armies'
> light cav?
>
> Also, I never did understand how a rhomboid would increase fighting power
> -
> maneuverability maybe?
>
> I ask because:
>
> 1) I am curious
>
> 2) new players as me and I want to be able to give an intelligent answer.
>
> thanks for all the info!
>
> Jonathan


Again, I'm not an official voice, just one who likes the game as is, so I
don't wish to become embroiled in something Scott or Bill are much better
able to weigh in on, or perhaps might prefer not to dissect quite so much.
From my perspective as a historian and gamer, I can only add that from my
own personal perspective:


1. Rhomboid (and wedge) were largely a matter of both maneuverability AND
the ability to stay in formation when changing direction and at and
immediately before contact. Fighting power is significantly impacted both
by maneuverability and by staying in formation, especially with respect to
light cavalry. By analogy, ask any fighter pilot or cowboy.

2. The fact that some cavalry just plain fought better (many times due to
better and longer training, as in the case of Tarantines and Thessalians,
or due to just being incredibly good horsemen like the Mongols) is not
replicated on the tabletop either by better grades of morale or by each
JLS armed cav unit, regardless of nationality, morale, etc., dishing out
the same number of casualties, subject only to random factor dicing.

I never regarded this general concept as indigestible, for a newbie or
otherwise. For example, 20 years ago, no one needed to explain to me why
Roman HTW dishes out a 5 to my HI, as compared to my pike's 2 to the
legionary HI, whereas my pike fights many more ranks than the legionary.
In fact, I never thought to ask. That's just what is required, along with
all the other game mechanics, to produce a reasonably realistic
simulation.

Now certainly other rules systems accomplish similar results by different
methods, whether one is speaking about napoleonics, pike and shot, or
whatever, but that doesn't undercut the utility of the list rules
occasionally used in the FHE system to accomplish the same result.

-Greek

Thanks! That's helpful.

Although the problem was never that people had trouble understanding the weapon
rating
and ranks-eligable-to-fight numbers when they were based on WEAPON (pikes v. HTW
etc.) only SPECIFICALLY with differences being based on NATIONALITY.

I also think that having some way to reflect that mongols were such good
horsemen is a
good idea. My question was just - what exactly is 1.5 ranks reflecting?

But I guess I sort of have an answer - Mongols can fight in 1.5 ranks to make
them better.

That's fine, I just wanted to know if there was something more, well, elegant.

J

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> > So what specifically was happening in a mongol light cavalry or classical
> > tarantine charge?
> > What was more effective at putting fighting power on the frontline of
> > these two armies'
> > light cav?
> >
> > Also, I never did understand how a rhomboid would increase fighting power
> > -
> > maneuverability maybe?
> >
> > I ask because:
> >
> > 1) I am curious
> >
> > 2) new players as me and I want to be able to give an intelligent answer.
> >
> > thanks for all the info!
> >
> > Jonathan
>
>
> Again, I'm not an official voice, just one who likes the game as is, so I
> don't wish to become embroiled in something Scott or Bill are much better
> able to weigh in on, or perhaps might prefer not to dissect quite so much.
> From my perspective as a historian and gamer, I can only add that from my
> own personal perspective:
>
>
> 1. Rhomboid (and wedge) were largely a matter of both maneuverability AND
> the ability to stay in formation when changing direction and at and
> immediately before contact. Fighting power is significantly impacted both
> by maneuverability and by staying in formation, especially with respect to
> light cavalry. By analogy, ask any fighter pilot or cowboy.
>
> 2. The fact that some cavalry just plain fought better (many times due to
> better and longer training, as in the case of Tarantines and Thessalians,
> or due to just being incredibly good horsemen like the Mongols) is not
> replicated on the tabletop either by better grades of morale or by each
> JLS armed cav unit, regardless of nationality, morale, etc., dishing out
> the same number of casualties, subject only to random factor dicing.
>
> I never regarded this general concept as indigestible, for a newbie or
> otherwise. For example, 20 years ago, no one needed to explain to me why
> Roman HTW dishes out a 5 to my HI, as compared to my pike's 2 to the
> legionary HI, whereas my pike fights many more ranks than the legionary.
> In fact, I never thought to ask. That's just what is required, along with
> all the other game mechanics, to produce a reasonably realistic
> simulation.
>
> Now certainly other rules systems accomplish similar results by different
> methods, whether one is speaking about napoleonics, pike and shot, or
> whatever, but that doesn't undercut the utility of the list rules
> occasionally used in the FHE system to accomplish the same result.
>
> -Greek
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/20/2006 9:24:41 AM Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

Huh?

I wote in the very first post of this thread that this was a _question_ not
a gripe about list
rules.

I was curious.

J



The original mail - especially given the FHE policy on 'why' questions and
the fact that we have answered it on a number of occasions already and given
the way the question was structured and caveated - was insulting. Either you
intended it or you didn't - not really worth it to explore that. But it was
a gripe veiled (thinly) as a 'question' nonetheless.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

On behalf of Bill Low and myself, thank you Bill (aka Greek) for the
explanation while we were away at Cold Wars.

Let me also add that oftentimes my extended periods of silence in
here stem from the fact that traffic can be voluminous and sometimes
vitriolic, hence, I'm not inclined to get into "discussions" with
people who start off such a conversation by insulting either Bill or
me, or both. Kudos to Jon for bothering to go beyond mere
monitoring.

Bill and I understand that the people who feel moved to post some
thought or another are motivated in many cases by a perfectly
understandable and VERY human desire to express their frustration,
confusion or irritation about some aspect of the rules or the lists
that seems to them to be wrong-headed, mean-spirited or just plain
incomprehensible. We also assume, perhaps wrongly at times, that
the energy behind some of the more "enthusiastic" posts is derived
from an inability to do what one wishes with a list, and a desire to
bend it around to what one thinks is optimal for gaming purposes.

However, both of us often wonder sometimes why and/or how it is that
the people who post these emails feel that it is necessary to cast
their complaint in such extreme, sarcastic or bitter terms ... maybe
it's the anonymity ... or maybe it's something that's inherent in
the medium itself ... dunno. I seriously doubt that the wording and
apparent tone of such emails would *ever* be done to either Bill or
me face-to-face. We often get pigeonholed at shows asking questions
about why something was done on a list and everybody who does that
asks with the politeness one would expect in such a situation.
Thus, the next time anybody thinks to couch a question, complaint or
gripe about some line item in a list or caveat or exception in the
Notes section, please remember how you would ask that question if
you were staring at my grumpy ass at Cold Wars or Historicon. If
you still feel a need to post such a question here in the way that
was done twice over the weekend, expect to hear crickets chirping in
reply.

But again, thanks to Bill the Greek for a refreshing and frankly
comforting "voice of reason" from his quarter of the Warrior world.
Thanks for your continued support. It is appreciated.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

> On behalf of Bill Low and myself, thank you Bill (aka Greek) for the
> explanation while we were away at Cold Wars.
>

No, thank you, Scott. I was more than a bit concerned about jumping in the
middle of this guy's question, so I feel better knowing that I didn't step
on your toes or Bill's. I figured, based on Jon's previous admonitions,
that y'all would probably let this fellow's "questions" dissipate in the
ether rather than answer them, so I figured I would take a shot at moving
him onto other subjects, at least. And, of course, I agree with your
general assessment of queries of this type (including, unfortunately, my
own from time to time!). I am happy to support what you guys are doing.
From my standpoint you saved something from oblivion that has entertained
and educated me (and many friends) for over 20 years now. Hope to see you
at H'con.

-Bill

Huh?

I wote in the very first post of this thread that this was a _question_ not a
gripe about list
rules.

I was curious.

J

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> > On behalf of Bill Low and myself, thank you Bill (aka Greek) for the
> > explanation while we were away at Cold Wars.
> >
>
> No, thank you, Scott. I was more than a bit concerned about jumping in the
> middle of this guy's question, so I feel better knowing that I didn't step
> on your toes or Bill's. I figured, based on Jon's previous admonitions,
> that y'all would probably let this fellow's "questions" dissipate in the
> ether rather than answer them, so I figured I would take a shot at moving
> him onto other subjects, at least. And, of course, I agree with your
> general assessment of queries of this type (including, unfortunately, my
> own from time to time!). I am happy to support what you guys are doing.
> From my standpoint you saved something from oblivion that has entertained
> and educated me (and many friends) for over 20 years now. Hope to see you
> at H'con.
>
> -Bill
>

Just re-read my original post. I just don't see how it was insulting. It
really was _just_ a
question.

I apologize though if it looked like a gripe - not my intention.

Won't post on this thread anymore.

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/20/2006 9:24:41 AM Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@... writes:
>
> Huh?
>
> I wote in the very first post of this thread that this was a _question_ not
> a gripe about list
> rules.
>
> I was curious.
>
> J
>
>
>
> The original mail - especially given the FHE policy on 'why' questions and
> the fact that we have answered it on a number of occasions already and given
> the way the question was structured and caveated - was insulting. Either you
> intended it or you didn't - not really worth it to explore that. But it was
> a gripe veiled (thinly) as a 'question' nonetheless.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>