Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hello, all.
I have a question about something in the rules, and I was wondering if I
could get someone to explain the logic behind it. This concerns the
dismounting of mounted troups. In section 2.25 Dismounted Troops, it reads
that "Three elements of chariots, one of SHK, EHK, HK or mounted infantry,
or two of other mounted troops exchange for one element of foot."
I have been curious why SHC, EHC, HC, and MC get penalized by this rule. I
can understand about LC and chariots. However, many armies allow for
heavier troop types up front, such as knights or cataphracts, backed up by
lighter types. These troops could dismount historically, but not according
to the rules. Why does an element of HK get to dismount 1:1, while HC is
2:1? I've been playing WRG since 7th came out, and this was a change that
was implemented in an earlier interp of 7th. I never found out about the
logic behind that decision, and was curious if anyone on this list could
enlighten me. Thank you for your time.

Rick Parrish

[joncleaves]

Rick

I will get to your question as soon as I can.

Jon

Jon,
Thanks. I think that Scott Holder was in on that decision. Also, to
clarify, I was wondering why certain elements of mounted (SHC, EHC, HC, MC)
could not dismount on a 1:1 basis, not whether they could dismount, of
course. This seems especially strange when considering the SHC, which was
basically a mounted phalanx.

Rick Parrish

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 4:20 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] A quick question about dismounting troops


Rick

I will get to your question as soon as I can.

Jon

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[scott holder]

Thanks. I think that Scott Holder was in on that decision.

>Um, I was? I was scratching my head over your original post when I read this
one. Without going back and looking at every iteration of 7th, I *think* the
dismounting ratio has been consistent since possibly the second iteration of
7th. I can tell you that the LC ratio was a response to massive English play
of dismounting LC so breaking foot units could count as having passed the
appropriate infantry type so as to revert to shaken. Lemme cut and pase a
couple of Rick's other comments in here.

However, many armies allow for heavier troop types up front, such as knights
or cataphracts, backed up by lighter types.

>This is certainly true for knights and the rules and most lists currently
allow for mixing of "knights" and "sergeants". However, I know of no evidence
to suggest the same thing occurred with cataphracts (although the Byzantines
could have done this, I just don't know off the top of my head). Parthian
cataphracts, the short-lived Palmyrians, etc, did not back up their
cataphracts. The NASAMW Tibetan list allows for a SHC/EHC mix but that's more
a reflection of interpreting the armor used at various points in time rather
than some account that suggests "the front rank was SHC, the second rank was
EHC" or something along those lines.

Also, to clarify, I was wondering why certain elements of mounted (SHC, EHC,
HC, MC)
could not dismount on a 1:1 basis, not whether they could dismount, of
course. This seems especially strange when considering the SHC, which was
basically a mounted phalanx.

>But.....I *think* (and will check) this was done for two seemingly
contradictory reasons. In the case of SHC, it was done to discourage
dismounting of that troop type. As mentioned earlier, there's almost no
account of such troop types fighting in battles dismounted. Of course this
rule type predates DBM in that Phil, in the DBM army lists, specifically sez
what cavalry can dismount--that restriction never existed in 7th. Now we
could do the same thing (simply say in a list "Parthian cataphracts can't
dismount") but, I'd rather provide the modern day CinC some options that add a
unique flavor to our game so, the 2:1 ratio seems a good compromise.

>As for the other troop types, again I *think* the reason for the 2:1 ratio
was comparative troop formation density vis a vis the knights (like I said,
it's seemingly contradictory since SHC were dense and yet they couldn't
dismount 1:1).

>I'll do a little checking up on this and let everybody know what I find out.
Of course someday I hafta start on "Arab Imperial" list in Dark Age Warrior
but finishing up HMGS Treasurer crap is taking priority over that.

Scott
List Ho

Scott,
Thanks for your reply. I know that you are busy, so any attention is
appreciated. I remember way back (at the beginning of 7th), when I was just
learning the system, that it was decided that mounted had to go to a 2:1
element ratio to dismount. I didn't like it then, but I didn't have a forum
to voice my opinion. Thanks again to the FHE for this opportunity. It, the
rule, always seemed to me to penalize armies (and generals). Following the
logic of your response, it does look like the rule system should go one way
or the other (either list-specific troops allowed to dismount, or a generic
rule to cover the situation). One other thought: Should the fact that a few
players used a tactic, or strategim, that was available to all, be a reason
to change a system? If all troops could dismount (and the mounted units
still cost more than the corresponding foot units formed from them), well,
shouldn't that be the general's choice. (Morale rules concerning armies
that didn't like to dismount could cover the "wailing" of the troops who
were forced to fight in a style they were not accustomed to). Therefore,
anyone who dismounted the Parthian cataphracts would have to deal with the
fact that the men were not as "dashing" as when they were mounted, while the
Burgundian general could dismount his Men-at-Arms knowing that they were
just as ready to smite their foe.

Rick Parrish

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:38 AM
To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] A quick question about dismounting troops



Thanks. I think that Scott Holder was in on that decision.

>Um, I was? I was scratching my head over your original post when I read
this
one. Without going back and looking at every iteration of 7th, I *think*
the
dismounting ratio has been consistent since possibly the second iteration of
7th. I can tell you that the LC ratio was a response to massive English
play
of dismounting LC so breaking foot units could count as having passed the
appropriate infantry type so as to revert to shaken. Lemme cut and pase a
couple of Rick's other comments in here.

However, many armies allow for heavier troop types up front, such as knights
or cataphracts, backed up by lighter types.

>This is certainly true for knights and the rules and most lists currently
allow for mixing of "knights" and "sergeants". However, I know of no
evidence
to suggest the same thing occurred with cataphracts (although the Byzantines
could have done this, I just don't know off the top of my head). Parthian
cataphracts, the short-lived Palmyrians, etc, did not back up their
cataphracts. The NASAMW Tibetan list allows for a SHC/EHC mix but that's
more
a reflection of interpreting the armor used at various points in time rather
than some account that suggests "the front rank was SHC, the second rank was
EHC" or something along those lines.

Also, to clarify, I was wondering why certain elements of mounted (SHC, EHC,
HC, MC)
could not dismount on a 1:1 basis, not whether they could dismount, of
course. This seems especially strange when considering the SHC, which was
basically a mounted phalanx.

>But.....I *think* (and will check) this was done for two seemingly
contradictory reasons. In the case of SHC, it was done to discourage
dismounting of that troop type. As mentioned earlier, there's almost no
account of such troop types fighting in battles dismounted. Of course this
rule type predates DBM in that Phil, in the DBM army lists, specifically sez
what cavalry can dismount--that restriction never existed in 7th. Now we
could do the same thing (simply say in a list "Parthian cataphracts can't
dismount") but, I'd rather provide the modern day CinC some options that add
a
unique flavor to our game so, the 2:1 ratio seems a good compromise.

>As for the other troop types, again I *think* the reason for the 2:1 ratio
was comparative troop formation density vis a vis the knights (like I said,
it's seemingly contradictory since SHC were dense and yet they couldn't
dismount 1:1).

>I'll do a little checking up on this and let everybody know what I find
out.
Of course someday I hafta start on "Arab Imperial" list in Dark Age Warrior
but finishing up HMGS Treasurer crap is taking priority over that.

Scott
List Ho

















To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/