Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 00:01:49 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
So, part of the way to minimize the perceived weakness is by building
the right supporting troops around the mandatory legions.>>
Quite true. Something Todd and I are working on, but also has a lot to do
with style. At higher levels of play, all the support troops really need to do
for me is screw with the plan of the guy who says: "Then I just pick my
targets and attack" - This is often made light of as though the other guy is
powerless to defend himself. Mike and I worked on this very hard before the
teams -
part army design, part deception..lol


Of course, then you have to work out how to handle all the LB and CB
shooting that is common in tourney play. A separate, but related
problem>>

Testudo, baby. But the real answer, as with most armies, is splitting fire -
the three tourney games I have not won in the last six months were primarily
due to mistakes on my part that prevented me splitting fire at key times.


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> the three tourney games I have not won in the last six months were primarily
> due to mistakes on my part that prevented me splitting fire at key times.

Hmm. This would seem to give credence to the suggestion that
missile power - either producing it or avoiding it - is key to
(at least your) play of Warrior.

On negatives/making lemonade:

Seleucids are slow, slow. This can't be used as a positive - who
wouldn't like pikes that had a 160p tactical move? - but it
tends to accompany troop density and resilience, both of which
are fine. They have available a troop type that I avoid - the
Reg C HC L - but which could, I suspect, be used to mitigate some
of this lack of speed (and force-projection) in other ways of
playing.

Aztecs/Incas suffer from the obvious limitation to bipedality;
the other and more subtle problem, which I have been alluding to
recently, is that of homogeneity. This leads to the need (and
desire) to press all along the line, which is not always the best
way to play with what can often want to be a countering and
counter-punching army, but which can wwork well in allowing one
to take advantage of any local weakness.

Imperialists pre-new lists had a bunch of disadvantages - the LI
while reg can only be HG or CB, the SHK had to be shieldless in
the late period (and you had to go late period to get any number
of LI), there are no useful LC. But I ran it with 9 or 10 SHK
units and 3 'Brigan' units (which frankly rarely saw combat, but
were just great for saking up missile fire as I ran them with
2HCT/CB, hence shooters to front), and so the 7 small units of LI
were all sent out to die but only after 2-3 bounds of holding up
the enemy - and at that point I hoped to have hit something very
hard. Another variant on the Condotta/Polish lists we've been
batting around.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 8:55:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> > the three tourney games I have not won in the last six months were primarily
> > due to mistakes on my part that prevented me splitting fire at key times.
>
> Hmm. This would seem to give credence to the suggestion that
> missile power - either producing it or avoiding it - is key
> to
> (at least your) play of Warrior.>>

Given that 'my play of Warrior' as discussed above was in open tourneys during
this bubble of missile popularity, sure. I am watching a great deal of
overreaction to what happened with Derek's koreans and then through the teams in
March. The cycle will come around..lol

Also, at the medium and higher levels of open play, players are into small units
and where there are lots of small units, missiles play a larger role and should,
I think, in that case.

J

[Todd Schneider]

From my somehwat limited point of view, there are a
couple of ways for Marians to deal with Knights.

The first is to buy Elephants. The only real problem
with that is IIRC they can only get up get up to 6E of
Numidians El, so in a 1600 point game you aren't going
to be able to spread them out with any sort of
effectivenss.

The second option is one that I I've been trying for
awhile, which is having another small unit in support
of a Legion , 6Op back from the main Legion. For
Marians, you can use a 2E Legion directly behind the
other legion and using the interpenetration rules, or
off the side of the legion in support. However,
speaking for myself I think the best unit to use would
be Irr Thracians, armed with 2HCW and JLS.

The way it's "supposed" to work is this:

K
K
L L
L L
T
T

The Knights charge in. Marians being Marians, they
can charge back, but as they wouldn't get a bonus for
charging thats kind off moot. Assuming the Knights
are Impetuous, they will be 5@7, or 30 casaulties, or
1 CPF to the Legion.
They Legion would be 6@1, or 9 casualties and 1 CPF to
the Knights. The Legion Recoiled 40P and is
disordered.
If the Legion were in Fulculm, the Knights could still
charge, but not Impetuosly, and be 5@5 and still push
the Legion back.

So now the combat is like this:

K
K
L L
L L T
T

Next bound, the Thracians charge the K in the flank.

K
KTT
L L
L L

If they are Irr and charge Impetuosly, they'll be 4@4
and 2@0, or 14 casualties. The Legion will be 8@0 for
8 Casualties, or 22 Total and 3CPF to the Knights.
The Knights on the return are 3@5 if they don't
expand, meaning they'll recoil the legion, who will
take a waver, and be pinned by the Thracians. Legion
passes it's waver, next bound gets a free charge, the
knights take a waver. If they pass the waver they are
3@2 or 6 casulties, the Legion is 6@-1 for 4
Casualties, the Thracians are 4@2 and 2@0 for 10
casulties. Knights take 14 and give out 6, they are
running away. In theory of course 8-)

Or, instead of using Thracians, you can use the
Armenian Allies, who are EHC L to try and charge the
Flank, and hope the legion or the EHC rolls up to give
you 24 casualties.

One of the big issues with above is that a good player
will see this and try and usually prevent it from
happening, so a Marian player has to pick a place in
his opponents line before hand and go after that.
Problem with that is he's usually outscouted, and is
often placing first.
The next issue is that Thracians, ecspecially Reg
Thracians who can maneuver, are excellent El Killers,
and if your using them to go after El, your remaining
options to support the Legions are kinda slim.

Terrain wise, I almost always take a Major Water
Feature and either a Steep Hill or a Forest, which I
would try and place pretty close to the Center of the
opposite table edge of the major Water Feature, in
order to shrink down the enagement area. ROmans, and
MArians being more expensive than other troops, are
going to almost always be outnumbered, and If I can
force my opponent into a traffic jam through jusicious
use of terrain, then thats better for me.
When I last Ran Marians, I had the CinC in a Legion,
with Armenian Allies. I'd force march the entire
Roman Command, less the Irr Scutarii who I'd set up as
close to the "front" of the rear zone as possible, and
then leave room between the Legions for the EHC to go
through if neccessary. The LI would go on One Flank,
the LC on the Other. I played Early Germans my first
game, and couldn't roll even or up to save my life
(but passed every waver until the last round), Pat's
Viking Horde, which I also managed to roll down more
often than up, but it still took a few more bounds for
him to break me, a Chinese Quin (Chin perhaps?) Army
that I got the matchups I knew I could win with and I
did win that game; and an Italian Condotta Army. I
was doing pretty well against the Condotta, I had
massed most of my units on one side and was doing
reasonably well against it when I rolled down three
and my opponent rolled up 3 in 2 consecutive battles
in one bound, then the game ended.

Well, that was more than a bit rambling, but I hope I
got the gist of what I wanted to say across.




<<<So, what does a player do to make Marians work in
open play? That is
a tougher question. Does he give up on any bias
towards historical
compositions? Does he work hard on controlling
terrain placement in
order to create a favorable battlefield? Does he
bribe the tournament
organizer so that he never faces a K army? ;-)

What would you advise?>>>

[Todd Schneider]

Splitting Missle Fire is one of the Things I have
become much better at myself, and worked very well for
me in the last tournament against the Chin and the
Condotta.

Pat had these 12E Units of Vikings, so I wasn't going
to split to much fire with him anyways....

But, ecspecially when running Romans in 4E blocks,
splitting a units fire is often pivotal in being able
to do what you want to do charge wise IMO.

I had quite a few practice games before hand, and saw
what happened (ecspecially to my Thracians) when they
were shot at full effect.

Todd


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

---------------------------------
In a message dated 5/19/2004 8:55:23 AM Eastern
Daylight Time, ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> > the three tourney games I have not won in the last
six months were primarily
> > due to mistakes on my part that prevented me
splitting fire at key times.
>
> Hmm. This would seem to give credence to the
suggestion that
> missile power - either producing it or avoiding it -
is key
> to
> (at least your) play of Warrior.>>

Given that 'my play of Warrior' as discussed above was
in open tourneys during this bubble of missile
popularity, sure. I am watching a great deal of
overreaction to what happened with Derek's koreans and
then through the teams in March. The cycle will come
around..lol

Also, at the medium and higher levels of open play,
players are into small units and where there are lots
of small units, missiles play a larger role and
should, I think, in that case.

J

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Ewan McNay]

Todd Schneider wrote:
> The first is to buy Elephants. The only real problem
> with that is IIRC they can only get up get up to 6E of
> Numidians El, so in a 1600 point game you aren't going
> to be able to spread them out with any sort of
> effectivenss.

Well, that depends - as well as being able to take down the K in
hth, of course they also spread disorder - which can be very
useful if your legion is facing a unit of SHK-backed-by-HC, for
example...

> Terrain wise, I almost always take a Major Water
> Feature and either a Steep Hill or a Forest, which I
> would try and place pretty close to the Center of the
> opposite table edge of the major Water Feature, in
> order to shrink down the enagement area. ROmans, and
> MArians being more expensive than other troops, are
> going to almost always be outnumbered, and If I can
> force my opponent into a traffic jam through jusicious
> use of terrain, then thats better for me.

This would surprise me - against K, your worry, surely it's
better for the K to be on the narrow frontage? (in general, of
course). I think of Romans in general as being in the class of
armies who generally want to out-light their opp. Were I running
them in an open tourney, I'd be looking to stretch the board and
avoid engagement on anything like even terms, I suspect.

[Todd Schneider]

Well, I think alot of it also depends on what Army
your facing.

The "Strike" part of my Marian List, 3 4E Legions and
a 4E Unit of Scutarii, spaced for "Support" for the
Thracians and Armenian Mounted, would only cover 13E
of frontage (assuming say a 60P gap between each
Legion).
You could spread that out,leaving Larger gaps between
the Legions and relying on the Armenian Mounted or
Thracians to also provide support when they move up,
but I have found that to be unreliable.

Also, more often than not the enemy is going to have
more units than I am, and depending on the composition
of his list, he's going to have problems getting the
matchup he wants trying to bring in his spread out
units to get the right matchups. Thats the problems
both my Quin and Condotta opponents had, it took them
longer to get their units set up to charge.

The problem is, from my POV, in an Open tournament
when your facing "anything" with SHK, there's nothing
you have as a Roman that can beat it on bound one.
Even LIR Romans with D, B and Caltrops on even dice
need SHK's to roll down in order to avoid recoiling
disordered.



--- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
This would surprise me - against K, your worry, surely
it's
better for the K to be on the narrow frontage? (in
general, of
course). I think of Romans in general as being in the
class of
armies who generally want to out-light their opp.
Were I running
them in an open tourney, I'd be looking to stretch the
board and
avoid engagement on anything like even terms, I
suspect.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Larry Essick]

> Well, I think alot of it also depends on what Army
> your facing.
>
> <snip>
>
> Also, more often than not the enemy is going to have
> more units than I am, and depending on the composition
> of his list, he's going to have problems getting the
> matchup he wants trying to bring in his spread out
> units to get the right matchups. Thats the problems
> both my Quin and Condotta opponents had, it took them
> longer to get their units set up to charge.
>
> The problem is, from my POV, in an Open tournament
> when your facing "anything" with SHK, there's nothing
> you have as a Roman that can beat it on bound one.
> Even LIR Romans with D, B and Caltrops on even dice
> need SHK's to roll down in order to avoid recoiling
> disordered.

:-)

Here is the classic example of players not working through all the
permutations.

In the case of the Qin and Condotta opponents, the problem is in not
deploying their strike force where it can move as a mass while
providing enough screen to fix the Marians in place. This means
arriving piecemeal which can be very dangerous.

One piece of advice to beginning players with mounted strike forces is
to keep the mounted forces deployed centrally and then to maneuver
them all together, by means of march moves, to the point of attack.
This allows the player to be in position to attack on bound 3 or 4 if
he uses his screening forces effectively.

In the case of the Marian's, the problem is in unit size and
employment as well as not bringing the right tools. This means
letting K arrive intact and able to deliver their 5 @ 5 impetuous
charge (note that I assume the legion is in fulcum). But, a 2E LCm
unit sitting behind the legions can change this to 5 @ 4. The choice
of Armenians as the allied contingent is interesting, but it is maybe
not optimal against enemy that can shoot and that has K!

Where are the Arabs? In addition to removing first charge
opportunities from the K by virtue of their LC & LCm, they have the
added benefit of being able to provide useful terrain troops and
missile equipped LI.

Running regulars in 4E units has long been popular. It is not
optimal, however. Here is an example where 6E and 2E units working
together might be better.

The Spanish scutarii are an attractive troop (as are the Armenian
lancers), but maybe not the best choice if you expect to face K.
Regular Thracians with LTS might be a better choice, especially if
they can work into the flank of K that are stuck in against a big
block of legion (while a small 2E block interpenetrates the big block,
perhaps).

Notice that if the SHK are disordered by Cm and down to 5 @ 4 that it
becomes a dice roll to see which body inflicts more casualties. This
also makes it much more likely that the legion can risk being wider
and so absorb more than one unit's charge.

The idea is to evaluate what the weakness is and to look for ways to
counter that weakness. What is the effect? Often it is that the
enemy will look for other places to attack -- meaning that you can go
ahead with your own battle plan since you take him out of his game.

Larry

[scott holder]

Where are the Arabs? In addition to removing first charge
opportunities from the K by virtue of their LC & LCm, they have the
added benefit of being able to provide useful terrain troops and
missile equipped LI. Notice that if the SHK are disordered by Cm and down to 5
@ 4 that it
becomes a dice roll to see which body inflicts more casualties. This
also makes it much more likely that the legion can risk being wider
and so absorb more than one unit's charge.

>I like this fwiw. I think the main idea with Marians/EIR when facing knights
is to do everything in your power to get at least 1FP on each knight unit,
somehow, prior to them charging and that should be driving what you're taking
outside of the basic legionaries. Yes, this is a counterpunching play style.
What's more, if you're playing the 1FP first, loitering camels to "support" the
legionaries second, now your opponent needs to factor in the whole "do I cheapen
my SHK unit by second-ranking it with EHK or less" concept even before the
battle begins. If your opponent has guessed "wrong", he will be very loath to
charge into the steady legionaries because his entire advantage of SHK is gone
gone gone because of the potential disorder and hitting tired part.

>On the flip side, if you do all of this and your knightly opponent doesn't do
that and instead attempts to engage everything but your little set piece
deployment designed to at least give your Romans a fighting chance against the
knights, you as the Roman player still have few options for taking the fight to
the enemy because, as I see it, you're still a counterpunching army. Therefore,
expect a grinding game for X number of hours and a low score.

>What I like in all of this is that we're actually discussing, somewhat
seriously, how to play Romans against late medieval knight trash. A year ago,
this would have been moot:):)

scott

[Larry Essick]

> >What I like in all of this is that we're actually discussing,
somewhat seriously, how to play Romans against late medieval knight
trash. A year ago, this would have been moot:)
>

Gosh Scott, anything to make you happy. ;-p

Here is the key, IMO, ....

Most players only think thru one bound's movements and combats, maybe
less than that.

This encourages a fire and forget approach to the game that says "I'll
win it all at once or go down in a blaze of glory." Good players can
afford this as they can usually minimize the size of the inferno when
they do not win outright.

But, some armies do not lend themselves to this approach. Romans are
an example of this. They must be patient and work hard to survive
first contact so that they can win in the second or third or fourth
bound. It means looking ahead several bounds and getting your
opponent to do what you want him to do.

In addition to the advice that players should deploy their strike
force compactly and maneuver it as a mass to the place of the real
battle, there is another bit of advice that has served me very well.
I was told very early on that if I needed to prompt a charge that I
was playing the game all wrong. That means working to create
disorder, getting around to the flanks, and holding units back so that
they have first charge opportunities when they will be most effective.

The addition of fulcum and circulating combat makes it possible to
take what have been really hopeless armies and turn them into good
second tier armies. They still will have difficulties against things
like LIR and Seleucid, but they will be able to compete.

One other thing about Marians is their ability to have a large number
of S,Sh LI. If a person does not like the LCm and the Arab allies,
they can use the Asiatics and the Bithynians. 12E of LI B and 24E of
LI S,Sh are very useful. My experience is that the shieldless B (and
that is how I would run them, give all the Sh to the S) are resilient
in a 12E unit while the S,Sh will work best in 4 units of 6E. The B
will keep most LC honest out on a flank, particularly if supported by
your own LC held in reserve. Let the enemy kill the LI. Who cares?
Then kill the LC in exchange.

Don't forget that a big unit won't necessarily rout off on contact or
be evaporated by the FP it takes. Hide in or behind terrain so you
don't need the waiver test, then shoot! Hey, what about that ditch?

That brings me to the third point of advice, which is terrain. I
really don't think players spend as much time thinking about using
terrain in combination with their army as they should. Lots of time
thinking about gimmicky things (like carts on ridges) or denying the
enemy, but not as much on how to help their own offensive approach.

Larry

[Todd Schneider]

<<<Here is the key, IMO, ....

Most players only think thru one bound's movements and
combats, maybe less than that.

This encourages a fire and forget approach to the game
that says "I'll win it all at once or go down in a
blaze of glory." Good players can afford this as they
can usually minimize the size of the inferno when
they do not win outright.>>>

I understand what your saying is, but I think it would
be better to say good players already have a plan for
if they lose somewhere they expect to win. I think
ther vast majority of players, including newer ones,
tend to think at least a bound ahead, and possibly
two, but only take into consideration what goes right.

Better players often look two or three bounds ahead,
and have a plan for what goes right and wrong in each
bound.

Having played Jon enough is making me learn this
lesson as well.

<<<But, some armies do not lend themselves to this
approach. Romans are an example of this. They must
be patient and work hard to survive first contact so
that they can win in the second or third or fourth
bound. It means looking ahead several bounds and
getting your opponent to do what you want him to
do.>>>

This is very true from my expierence. My recent
battle against Early Germans was like this, I went
into a lot of combats knowing on even or better dice I
was still going to be recoiled, but in the subsequent
bounds, due to a variety of factors, I "Should" be
winning the majority of the battles. In fact, looking
back on my notes of that game, had I rolled even or
better in three of four combats, I would have been
"winning" in the area I wanted to battle to be
decided. As it was I went down 2, down 2, down 1 and
down 3...and I didn't have a plan for recovering from
that, which went a long way to my losing the game.

<<<In addition to the advice that players should
deploy their strike force compactly and maneuver it as
a mass to the place of the real battle, there is
another bit of advice that has served me very well.
I was told very early on that if I needed to prompt a
charge that I was playing the game all wrong.>>>

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say if you have to
prompt mopre than a charge or two a bound then you're
having issues.

[Larry Essick]

> This is very true from my expierence. My recent
> battle against Early Germans was like this, I went
> into a lot of combats knowing on even or better dice I
> was still going to be recoiled, but in the subsequent
> bounds, due to a variety of factors, I "Should" be
> winning the majority of the battles. In fact, looking
> back on my notes of that game, had I rolled even or
> better in three of four combats, I would have been
> "winning" in the area I wanted to battle to be
> decided. As it was I went down 2, down 2, down 1 and
> down 3...and I didn't have a plan for recovering from
> that, which went a long way to my losing the game.

:-) Never plan based on what happens if you roll even. Plan based on
what happens when you roll down 1 and your opponent rolls up 1. Taken
with deploy compact then maneuver and don't rely on prompted charges,
this forms the core for good solid performance against most opponents.

> <<<In addition to the advice that players should
> deploy their strike force compactly and maneuver it as
> a mass to the place of the real battle, there is
> another bit of advice that has served me very well.
> I was told very early on that if I needed to prompt a
> charge that I was playing the game all wrong.>>>
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say if you have to
> prompt mopre than a charge or two a bound then you're
> having issues.

:-) I've won many, many games without ever issuing a prompt -- even
when first charge opportunities were not taken. If a person plays
with the intent of avoiding prompted charges but, instead, working to
create situations where prompts won't be needed, he becomes a better
player. An occassional prompt might be needed, but once a player has
this part of the game down, he really gets to be very dangerous.

Larry

“ I've won many, many games without ever issuing a prompt -- even
when first charge opportunities were not taken. If a person plays
with the intent of avoiding prompted charges but, instead, working to
create situations where prompts won't be needed, he becomes a better
player. An occasional prompt might be needed, but once a player has
this part of the game down, he really gets to be very dangerous.”

How true I am finding that to be.

My last battle was won with a more “negative” army vs. what is considered by
many to be an army with more positives than negatives – Late Ach. Persian
vs. Alexandrian Macedonian. In this case the negatives for the Persians are
the loads of D class Inf vs his C and B class MI P Sh and LMI (mostly JLS
LTS Sh). and the mostly shieldless HC w/ JLS (1/4 are armed w/ B as well) vs
his HC L. The key to this victory was to be patient and try to get my LC B
in a position to slow him down and pin him in some cases while waiting to
hit with my HC when the time was right. The best (and quite frankly only)
shock troop at my disposal were Scythed Chariots which went on a flank march
with the rest of their command and never showed up….sigh.

I won that battle by placing two 4e LC w/ JLS B supporting my 4 units of 2E
HC JLS (1/2 also B armed in that command) and placed them on a probe order
with the CnC. I just waited until an opportunity arose that allowed me to
charge without a prompt (I actually didn’t issue a prompt the entire battle
which lasted 10 bounds before he threw in the towel). The tide turner was
the impetuous Skythian LC (JLS, B) charge into his shaken MI P that created
a hole for the rest of the cavalry to pour through…

I agree with an earlier post in that I was forced to figure out what I could
do with a “poorer” troop type and it does make you play smarter. When you
look on paper at the matchup of my best vs his best in each category, he had
the definite edge – so there weren’t any all-out assaults planned on my part
and I am forced to finesse more – planning for the second and third bounds
of contact, etc.

While I don’t claim to be good at this game [yet ], playing with an
“inferior” army forces one to learn the subtleties in order to have a chance
and I believe that when I switch to a better quality (well better overall
morale and balanced) army I will play that much smarter.



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

[Chris Bump]

The tide turner was
the impetuous Skythian LC (JLS, B) charge into his shaken MI P that created
a hole for the rest of the cavalry to pour through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Why on earth would you declare your cav impetuous versus a shaken infantry body?

Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott & Tracie McCoppin
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: Army Negatives as a viewpoint


" I've won many, many games without ever issuing a prompt -- even
when first charge opportunities were not taken. If a person plays
with the intent of avoiding prompted charges but, instead, working to
create situations where prompts won't be needed, he becomes a better
player. An occasional prompt might be needed, but once a player has
this part of the game down, he really gets to be very dangerous."

How true I am finding that to be.

My last battle was won with a more "negative" army vs. what is considered by
many to be an army with more positives than negatives - Late Ach. Persian
vs. Alexandrian Macedonian. In this case the negatives for the Persians are
the loads of D class Inf vs his C and B class MI P Sh and LMI (mostly JLS
LTS Sh). and the mostly shieldless HC w/ JLS (1/4 are armed w/ B as well) vs
his HC L. The key to this victory was to be patient and try to get my LC B
in a position to slow him down and pin him in some cases while waiting to
hit with my HC when the time was right. The best (and quite frankly only)
shock troop at my disposal were Scythed Chariots which went on a flank march
with the rest of their command and never showed up..sigh.

I won that battle by placing two 4e LC w/ JLS B supporting my 4 units of 2E
HC JLS (1/2 also B armed in that command) and placed them on a probe order
with the CnC. I just waited until an opportunity arose that allowed me to
charge without a prompt (I actually didn't issue a prompt the entire battle
which lasted 10 bounds before he threw in the towel). The tide turner was
the impetuous Skythian LC (JLS, B) charge into his shaken MI P that created
a hole for the rest of the cavalry to pour through.

I agree with an earlier post in that I was forced to figure out what I could
do with a "poorer" troop type and it does make you play smarter. When you
look on paper at the matchup of my best vs his best in each category, he had
the definite edge - so there weren't any all-out assaults planned on my part
and I am forced to finesse more - planning for the second and third bounds
of contact, etc.

While I don't claim to be good at this game [yet ], playing with an
"inferior" army forces one to learn the subtleties in order to have a chance
and I believe that when I switch to a better quality (well better overall
morale and balanced) army I will play that much smarter.



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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

First of all, I want to take a moment to say that, when I re-read my post it
was far more self-congratulatory sounding than intended - it was a battle
fraught with many mistakes, etc. and was really only an attempt to explain
how I was beginning to understand what he meant and agree with it in light
of my small amount of experience.

Now then, why I charged impetuously..probably because it was the best and
quickest way to guarantee that I would punch a hole in his line. I was
willing to tire out a unit of LC to insure that the hole was there pour
through. He had a flank march arrive two bounds before and I was trying to
force the issue before he did. When I looked at the numbers, if I had
rolled down or he rolled up, then there would have been the possibility of
just breaking off. By causing him to rout, there was a hole there 6 E wide
and I had 8 E of Cav (in three units) sitting there ready to move through -
not to mention the waver tests caused by the rout and unease caused by the
formed units in his flank or rear.

Maybe an incorrect assessment made by an inexperience player, but it worked.
Opinions?




-----Original Message-----
From: CHRIS BUMP [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:38 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Army Negatives as a viewpoint

The tide turner was
the impetuous Skythian LC (JLS, B) charge into his shaken MI P that created
a hole for the rest of the cavalry to pour through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Why on earth would you declare your cav impetuous versus a shaken infantry
body?

Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott & Tracie McCoppin
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: Army Negatives as a viewpoint


" I've won many, many games without ever issuing a prompt -- even
when first charge opportunities were not taken. If a person plays
with the intent of avoiding prompted charges but, instead, working to
create situations where prompts won't be needed, he becomes a better
player. An occasional prompt might be needed, but once a player has
this part of the game down, he really gets to be very dangerous."

How true I am finding that to be.

My last battle was won with a more "negative" army vs. what is considered
by
many to be an army with more positives than negatives - Late Ach. Persian
vs. Alexandrian Macedonian. In this case the negatives for the Persians
are
the loads of D class Inf vs his C and B class MI P Sh and LMI (mostly JLS
LTS Sh). and the mostly shieldless HC w/ JLS (1/4 are armed w/ B as well)
vs
his HC L. The key to this victory was to be patient and try to get my LC
B
in a position to slow him down and pin him in some cases while waiting to
hit with my HC when the time was right. The best (and quite frankly only)
shock troop at my disposal were Scythed Chariots which went on a flank
march
with the rest of their command and never showed up..sigh.

I won that battle by placing two 4e LC w/ JLS B supporting my 4 units of
2E
HC JLS (1/2 also B armed in that command) and placed them on a probe order
with the CnC. I just waited until an opportunity arose that allowed me to
charge without a prompt (I actually didn't issue a prompt the entire
battle
which lasted 10 bounds before he threw in the towel). The tide turner was
the impetuous Skythian LC (JLS, B) charge into his shaken MI P that
created
a hole for the rest of the cavalry to pour through.

I agree with an earlier post in that I was forced to figure out what I
could
do with a "poorer" troop type and it does make you play smarter. When you
look on paper at the matchup of my best vs his best in each category, he
had
the definite edge - so there weren't any all-out assaults planned on my
part
and I am forced to finesse more - planning for the second and third bounds
of contact, etc.

While I don't claim to be good at this game [yet ], playing with an
"inferior" army forces one to learn the subtleties in order to have a
chance
and I believe that when I switch to a better quality (well better overall
morale and balanced) army I will play that much smarter.



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



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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