Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm new to Warrior and to the list so excuse me in advance for any dumb
questions. I'm in the process of putting together a 15mm 1200pt Ayyubid army
(I'll expand to 1600 once I get the 1200 done). I have three units of HC/EHC
beyond those with the C&C. Initially, I had planned on having one 4E RC HC, one
4E RB HC and one 4E RA EHC. All of these guys are L, B, Sh. Once I got on the
list I found out you could mix unit composition as long as everything is listed
on one line in the army list. So, I was considering changing the RA and RB
groups to ½ EHC and ½ HC each instead of one EHC RA unit. I figure that would
get me the most "bang for my buck".

However, I think I may have left an important element out of the equation...the
ability to skirmish. Now I'm not thinking about the improved defense of
skirmishing troops against missile fire...the improved armor of EHC troops more
or less negates that advantage. I'm thinking of the ability to evade. As I read
the rules only light or skirmishing troops (and those that evaded last bound)
can evade. Is this correct? If so it might make more sense to go with HC since
they could skirmish until they have an opportunity to charge as John suggests
for his Russians. In a world filled with knights this might be a real advantage
:-)

So in short I guess my question is this. What are your opinions
about the relative value of HC; EHC; and EHC/HC unit composition for 4E RC, RA
and RB troops. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of putting these troops in
"huge" 6E units as John did for his HC/MC Boyars. Any thoughts? Thanks in
advance.



Paul



________________________________

From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Todd Kaeser
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:15 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Early Russians


Hi,

I have dabbled with Russians quite a bit. I like the Post-Mongol Russians
and used them this summer at Historicon with some success. I ended up fighting
Mongols so they got a pretty good historical workout as well. I lost ;-(
I can't find my 1600 point list, but below is a 1200 point list. I used my
Russian foot basically to cut down battlefield and skirmished with my HC
until opportunity to charge presented itself. The large units L, B are actually
pretty workable even without shields.

2E CinC IB HC L, B, w/PA 155
2E 2inC IB HC L, B, w/P 95
4E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 65
6E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 85
4E Dvor IB HC L, B 121 x 2
6E Lesser Boyars IC 1/2 HC and 1/2 MC L, B 133 x 2
6E Militia Bowmen IC MI B, Sh 97 x 2
4E Peasants ID LMI B, Sh 49 x 2

I have also used Bulgars as allies for my Russ in early periods to gain some
mobility. I pretty much like all of the Russian armies. I don't think they
count as 'killer' armies, but they are fun and respectable. Another trick is
to listen to Aleksandr Nevskii to get psyched up on the way to the game site.
I haven't run into any Teutons lately though ;-(

John Garlic


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




________________________________



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

[Ewan McNay]

Ayyubids were my very first army, bought for I think ten pounds back in 88
(?) as 7th came out.

I never managed to get them to success; too little raw power to back up
the finesse.

Having said that, you want to probably avoid big units - that just loses
the advantage of regular 'swarm' manouvre.

I'm not a fan of EHC in general; so I'd go for HC. At least, as you say,
you can then run away (and as Reg B, you should be making those counters).
On the other hand, you might argue that as Reg B EHC, you can equally
counter when needed. And there is some definite validity to that.

Perhaps think about this another way. What troops do you plan to beat,
and how, with the army? Then, work out how to buy the army to do so.
Planning to beat IrrC LMI JLS, Sh in the open, which I happen to think is
about the limit of this army's ability , is probably not a valid plan..
.

Ewan


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Paul Wilson wrote:

> I'm new to Warrior and to the list so excuse me in advance for any dumb
questions. I'm in the process of putting together a 15mm 1200pt Ayyubid army
(I'll expand to 1600 once I get the 1200 done). I have three units of HC/EHC
beyond those with the C&C. Initially, I had planned on having one 4E RC HC, one
4E RB HC and one 4E RA EHC. All of these guys are L, B, Sh. Once I got on the
list I found out you could mix unit composition as long as everything is listed
on one line in the army list. So, I was considering changing the RA and RB
groups to ½ EHC and ½ HC each instead of one EHC RA unit. I figure that would
get me the most "bang for my buck".
>
> However, I think I may have left an important element out of the
equation...the ability to skirmish. Now I'm not thinking about the improved
defense of skirmishing troops against missile fire...the improved armor of EHC
troops more or less negates that advantage. I'm thinking of the ability to
evade. As I read the rules only light or skirmishing troops (and those that
evaded last bound) can evade. Is this correct? If so it might make more sense
to go with HC since they could skirmish until they have an opportunity to charge
as John suggests for his Russians. In a world filled with knights this might be
a real advantage
>
> So in short I guess my question is this. What are your opinions
about the relative value of HC; EHC; and EHC/HC unit composition for 4E RC, RA
and RB troops. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of putting these troops in
"huge" 6E units as John did for his HC/MC Boyars. Any thoughts? Thanks in
advance.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Todd Kaeser
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Early Russians
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have dabbled with Russians quite a bit. I like the Post-Mongol Russians
> and used them this summer at Historicon with some success. I ended up
fighting
> Mongols so they got a pretty good historical workout as well. I lost ;-(
> I can't find my 1600 point list, but below is a 1200 point list. I used my
> Russian foot basically to cut down battlefield and skirmished with my HC
> until opportunity to charge presented itself. The large units L, B are
actually
> pretty workable even without shields.
>
> 2E CinC IB HC L, B, w/PA 155
> 2E 2inC IB HC L, B, w/P 95
> 4E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 65
> 6E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 85
> 4E Dvor IB HC L, B 121 x 2
> 6E Lesser Boyars IC 1/2 HC and 1/2 MC L, B 133 x 2
> 6E Militia Bowmen IC MI B, Sh 97 x 2
> 4E Peasants ID LMI B, Sh 49 x 2
>
> I have also used Bulgars as allies for my Russ in early periods to gain some
> mobility. I pretty much like all of the Russian armies. I don't think they
> count as 'killer' armies, but they are fun and respectable. Another trick is
> to listen to Aleksandr Nevskii to get psyched up on the way to the game site.
> I haven't run into any Teutons lately though ;-(
>
> John Garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ewan said:


Ayyubids were my very first army, bought for I think ten pounds back in 88
(?) as 7th came out.

I never managed to get them to success; too little raw power to back up
the finesse.

>>> lol...I think that more or less describes me in general. Until very
recently I was involved with tournament sparring in tae kwon do...as a bantam
weight. Yes, when I bulk up I'm a massive 136lbs. Needless to say most of my
training was against larger opponents. In those cases you could certainly say I
had more speed and finesse...but lacked my opponent's raw power I wonder how
often the armies that players gravitate towards relate to their own
personalities...
That being said I also like the look of this army and I'm interested in the
period. I always like playing the forces of civilization against the barbarians.
I'm actually more interested in Al Andalus but ended up passing on Andalusians
as a warrior army since they don't seem like my style game wise. They also look
like they would be even less competitive then the Ayyubids ;)

Having said that, you want to probably avoid big units - that just loses
the advantage of regular 'swarm' manouvre.

>>> Check...forget gigantic units.

I'm not a fan of EHC in general; so I'd go for HC. At least, as you say,
you can then run away (and as Reg B, you should be making those counters).
On the other hand, you might argue that as Reg B EHC, you can equally
counter when needed. And there is some definite validity to that.

>>> Hmmm....I'll have to think about this. With both the Reg B and Reg A units I
could expect to make counters normally which might often avoid the need to
evade. Of course there is something nice about having the option to evade. It
certainly might make your opponent think twice about charging impetuously with
knights if he is not sure you will be their when he arrives.


Ewan

>>>> Thanks for the input!
>>>> Paul


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Paul Wilson wrote:

> I'm new to Warrior and to the list so excuse me in advance for any dumb
questions. I'm in the process of putting together a 15mm 1200pt Ayyubid army
(I'll expand to 1600 once I get the 1200 done). I have three units of HC/EHC
beyond those with the C&C. Initially, I had planned on having one 4E RC HC, one
4E RB HC and one 4E RA EHC. All of these guys are L, B, Sh. Once I got on the
list I found out you could mix unit composition as long as everything is listed
on one line in the army list. So, I was considering changing the RA and RB
groups to ½ EHC and ½ HC each instead of one EHC RA unit. I figure that would
get me the most "bang for my buck".
>
> However, I think I may have left an important element out of the
equation...the ability to skirmish. Now I'm not thinking about the improved
defense of skirmishing troops against missile fire...the improved armor of EHC
troops more or less negates that advantage. I'm thinking of the ability to
evade. As I read the rules only light or skirmishing troops (and those that
evaded last bound) can evade. Is this correct? If so it might make more sense
to go with HC since they could skirmish until they have an opportunity to charge
as John suggests for his Russians. In a world filled with knights this might be
a real advantage
>
> So in short I guess my question is this. What are your opinions
about the relative value of HC; EHC; and EHC/HC unit composition for 4E RC, RA
and RB troops. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of putting these troops in
"huge" 6E units as John did for his HC/MC Boyars. Any thoughts? Thanks in
advance.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Todd Kaeser
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Early Russians
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have dabbled with Russians quite a bit. I like the Post-Mongol Russians
> and used them this summer at Historicon with some success. I ended up
fighting
> Mongols so they got a pretty good historical workout as well. I lost ;-(
> I can't find my 1600 point list, but below is a 1200 point list. I used my
> Russian foot basically to cut down battlefield and skirmished with my HC
> until opportunity to charge presented itself. The large units L, B are
actually
> pretty workable even without shields.
>
> 2E CinC IB HC L, B, w/PA 155
> 2E 2inC IB HC L, B, w/P 95
> 4E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 65
> 6E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 85
> 4E Dvor IB HC L, B 121 x 2
> 6E Lesser Boyars IC 1/2 HC and 1/2 MC L, B 133 x 2
> 6E Militia Bowmen IC MI B, Sh 97 x 2
> 4E Peasants ID LMI B, Sh 49 x 2
>
> I have also used Bulgars as allies for my Russ in early periods to gain some
> mobility. I pretty much like all of the Russian armies. I don't think they
> count as 'killer' armies, but they are fun and respectable. Another trick is
> to listen to Aleksandr Nevskii to get psyched up on the way to the game site.
> I haven't run into any Teutons lately though ;-(
>
> John Garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

I played Ayyubids and similar Arab armies for years with varying
success. I used the big infantry bow units along with lots of LC and
HC. The HC skirmished against knights, shooting them and forcing
charges. As long as you don't get caught in the evade, you can quickly
wear them done and then double team them. The real disadvantage with
with armies like the Ayyubids is the board is not wide enough to truly
make use of your mobility. While knights can be handled, pike and
elephant armies tend to crush you unless you can get your bows into
position to nail the elephants. Many opponents put woods in my rear
area to stop my evades. This is definitely a finesse army, but one
that I certainly enjoyed playing. The only advantage of EHC is if you
have to change spears, the spears have a lower factor against EHC.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wilson <pwilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:02:30 -0500
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Ayyubid HC/EHC [Was: Early Russians]

Ewan said:


Ayyubids were my very first army, bought for I think ten pounds back in
88
(?) as 7th came out.

I never managed to get them to success; too little raw power to back up
the finesse.

>>> lol...I think that more or less describes me in general. Until
very
recently I was involved with tournament sparring in tae kwon do...as a
bantam
weight. Yes, when I bulk up I'm a massive 136lbs. Needless to say most
of my
training was against larger opponents. In those cases you could
certainly say I
had more speed and finesse...but lacked my opponent's raw power I
wonder how
often the armies that players gravitate towards relate to their own
personalities...
That being said I also like the look of this army and I'm
interested in the
period. I always like playing the forces of civilization against the
barbarians.
I'm actually more interested in Al Andalus but ended up passing on
Andalusians
as a warrior army since they don't seem like my style game wise. They
also look
like they would be even less competitive then the Ayyubids ;)

Having said that, you want to probably avoid big units - that just loses
the advantage of regular 'swarm' manouvre.

>>> Check...forget gigantic units.

I'm not a fan of EHC in general; so I'd go for HC. At least, as you
say,
you can then run away (and as Reg B, you should be making those
counters).
On the other hand, you might argue that as Reg B EHC, you can equally
counter when needed. And there is some definite validity to that.

>>> Hmmm....I'll have to think about this. With both the Reg B and Reg
A units I
could expect to make counters normally which might often avoid the need
to
evade. Of course there is something nice about having the option to
evade. It
certainly might make your opponent think twice about charging
impetuously with
knights if he is not sure you will be their when he arrives.


Ewan

>>>> Thanks for the input!
>>>> Paul


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Paul Wilson wrote:

> I'm new to Warrior and to the list so excuse me in advance for any
dumb
questions. I'm in the process of putting together a 15mm 1200pt Ayyubid
army
(I'll expand to 1600 once I get the 1200 done). I have three units of
HC/EHC
beyond those with the C&C. Initially, I had planned on having one 4E RC
HC, one
4E RB HC and one 4E RA EHC. All of these guys are L, B, Sh. Once I got
on the
list I found out you could mix unit composition as long as everything
is listed
on one line in the army list. So, I was considering changing the RA and
RB
groups to ½ EHC and ½ HC each instead of one EHC RA unit. I figure that
would
get me the most "bang for my buck".
>
> However, I think I may have left an important element out of the
equation...the ability to skirmish. Now I'm not thinking about the
improved
defense of skirmishing troops against missile fire...the improved armor
of EHC
troops more or less negates that advantage. I'm thinking of the ability
to
evade. As I read the rules only light or skirmishing troops (and those
that
evaded last bound) can evade. Is this correct? If so it might make
more sense
to go with HC since they could skirmish until they have an opportunity
to charge
as John suggests for his Russians. In a world filled with knights this
might be
a real advantage
>
> So in short I guess my question is this. What are your
opinions
about the relative value of HC; EHC; and EHC/HC unit composition for 4E
RC, RA
and RB troops. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of putting these
troops in
"huge" 6E units as John did for his HC/MC Boyars. Any thoughts? Thanks
in
advance.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Todd Kaeser
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Early Russians
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have dabbled with Russians quite a bit. I like the Post-Mongol
Russians
> and used them this summer at Historicon with some success. I ended
up
fighting
> Mongols so they got a pretty good historical workout as well. I
lost ;-(

> I can't find my 1600 point list, but below is a 1200 point list. I
used my
> Russian foot basically to cut down battlefield and skirmished with my
HC
> until opportunity to charge presented itself. The large units L, B
are
actually
> pretty workable even without shields.
>
> 2E CinC IB HC L, B, w/PA 155
> 2E 2inC IB HC L, B, w/P
95
> 4E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 65
> 6E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 85
> 4E Dvor IB HC L, B
121 x 2
> 6E Lesser Boyars IC 1/2 HC and 1/2 MC L, B 133 x 2
> 6E Militia Bowmen IC MI B, Sh 97
x 2
> 4E Peasants ID LMI B, Sh
49 x 2
>
> I have also used Bulgars as allies for my Russ in early periods to
gain some
> mobility. I pretty much like all of the Russian armies. I don't
think they
> count as 'killer' armies, but they are fun and respectable. Another
trick is
> to listen to Aleksandr Nevskii to get psyched up on the way to the
game site.

> I haven't run into any Teutons lately though ;-(
>
> John Garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links










Yahoo! Groups Links

Mike Said:

I played Ayyubids and similar Arab armies for years with varying
success. I used the big infantry bow units along with lots of LC and
HC.

>>> Yep, In addition to the HC I was planning on using a the ubiquitous LC as
well as a block of LMI bow and LHI crossbow. I was even going to experiment with
a block of Irreg A jls, sh and/or the Reg C jls, sh. Since I'm new to the game I
figure this army will be all about learning how to use the units in a
synergistic fashion.

The HC skirmished against knights, shooting them and forcing
charges. As long as you don't get caught in the evade, you can quickly
wear them done and then double team them. The real disadvantage with
with armies like the Ayyubids is the board is not wide enough to truly
make use of your mobility.

>>> Yes, this is one thing I noticed about the tournament setup for warrior.
The artificially small battlefields give an advantage to the more plodding
Infantry, Knight, Elephant armies. It's hard to get to a flank if your
opponents army stretches from one edge of "the world" to the other
Fortunately, with friendly games at the local game shop you can always run 15mm
armies on a full size (6'x4')table if you like. I think this might change the
game dynamic somewhat.

While knights can be handled, pike and elephant armies tend to crush you unless
you can get your bows into position to nail the elephants.

>>> Yes I'm certainly concerned about facing Pike or Lts close order infantry
in the open. None of the Ayyubid units look like they have the punch to take
them on directly. I guess I'll just have to try to pin them and go after other
units until I can turn a flank With regard to the elephants won't the loose
infantry have some capability aginst these? I'm not only thinking about the b,sh
and cb,sh troops but the jls, sh units as well.

Many opponents put woods in my rear area to stop my evades.

>>> I had not considered this! I have only played about 5 games to date (with
a borrowed army). It will take me a while to get used to the fact that
"generals" can direct the terrain to suit their desires in Warrior just as they
direct their troops.

This is definitely a finesse army, but one that I certainly enjoyed playing.
The only advantage of EHC is if you have to change spears, the spears have a
lower factor against EHC.

Mike

>>>> Thanks for the help. I'm sure you'll be seeing more questions from me in
the near future.
>>>> Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wilson <pwilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:02:30 -0500
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Ayyubid HC/EHC [Was: Early Russians]

Ewan said:


Ayyubids were my very first army, bought for I think ten pounds back in
88
(?) as 7th came out.

I never managed to get them to success; too little raw power to back up
the finesse.

>>> lol...I think that more or less describes me in general. Until
very
recently I was involved with tournament sparring in tae kwon do...as a
bantam
weight. Yes, when I bulk up I'm a massive 136lbs. Needless to say most
of my
training was against larger opponents. In those cases you could
certainly say I
had more speed and finesse...but lacked my opponent's raw power I
wonder how
often the armies that players gravitate towards relate to their own
personalities...
That being said I also like the look of this army and I'm
interested in the
period. I always like playing the forces of civilization against the
barbarians.
I'm actually more interested in Al Andalus but ended up passing on
Andalusians
as a warrior army since they don't seem like my style game wise. They
also look
like they would be even less competitive then the Ayyubids ;)

Having said that, you want to probably avoid big units - that just loses
the advantage of regular 'swarm' manouvre.

>>> Check...forget gigantic units.

I'm not a fan of EHC in general; so I'd go for HC. At least, as you
say,
you can then run away (and as Reg B, you should be making those
counters).
On the other hand, you might argue that as Reg B EHC, you can equally
counter when needed. And there is some definite validity to that.

>>> Hmmm....I'll have to think about this. With both the Reg B and Reg
A units I
could expect to make counters normally which might often avoid the need
to
evade. Of course there is something nice about having the option to
evade. It
certainly might make your opponent think twice about charging
impetuously with
knights if he is not sure you will be their when he arrives.


Ewan

>>>> Thanks for the input!
>>>> Paul


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Paul Wilson wrote:

> I'm new to Warrior and to the list so excuse me in advance for any
dumb
questions. I'm in the process of putting together a 15mm 1200pt Ayyubid
army
(I'll expand to 1600 once I get the 1200 done). I have three units of
HC/EHC
beyond those with the C&C. Initially, I had planned on having one 4E RC
HC, one
4E RB HC and one 4E RA EHC. All of these guys are L, B, Sh. Once I got
on the
list I found out you could mix unit composition as long as everything
is listed
on one line in the army list. So, I was considering changing the RA and
RB
groups to ½ EHC and ½ HC each instead of one EHC RA unit. I figure that
would
get me the most "bang for my buck".
>
> However, I think I may have left an important element out of the
equation...the ability to skirmish. Now I'm not thinking about the
improved
defense of skirmishing troops against missile fire...the improved armor
of EHC
troops more or less negates that advantage. I'm thinking of the ability
to
evade. As I read the rules only light or skirmishing troops (and those
that
evaded last bound) can evade. Is this correct? If so it might make
more sense
to go with HC since they could skirmish until they have an opportunity
to charge
as John suggests for his Russians. In a world filled with knights this
might be
a real advantage
>
> So in short I guess my question is this. What are your
opinions
about the relative value of HC; EHC; and EHC/HC unit composition for 4E
RC, RA
and RB troops. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of putting these
troops in
"huge" 6E units as John did for his HC/MC Boyars. Any thoughts? Thanks
in
advance.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Todd Kaeser
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Early Russians
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have dabbled with Russians quite a bit. I like the Post-Mongol
Russians
> and used them this summer at Historicon with some success. I ended
up
fighting
> Mongols so they got a pretty good historical workout as well. I
lost ;-(

> I can't find my 1600 point list, but below is a 1200 point list. I
used my
> Russian foot basically to cut down battlefield and skirmished with my
HC
> until opportunity to charge presented itself. The large units L, B
are
actually
> pretty workable even without shields.
>
> 2E CinC IB HC L, B, w/PA 155
> 2E 2inC IB HC L, B, w/P
95
> 4E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 65
> 6E Retainers IC LC 1/2 B, Sh and 1/2 B 85
> 4E Dvor IB HC L, B
121 x 2
> 6E Lesser Boyars IC 1/2 HC and 1/2 MC L, B 133 x 2
> 6E Militia Bowmen IC MI B, Sh 97
x 2
> 4E Peasants ID LMI B, Sh
49 x 2
>
> I have also used Bulgars as allies for my Russ in early periods to
gain some
> mobility. I pretty much like all of the Russian armies. I don't
think they
> count as 'killer' armies, but they are fun and respectable. Another
trick is
> to listen to Aleksandr Nevskii to get psyched up on the way to the
game site.

> I haven't run into any Teutons lately though ;-(
>
> John Garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links










Yahoo! Groups Links










________________________________

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


* Visit your group "WarriorRules <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules>
" on the web.

* 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]