Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

After the Pointcon games, and the discussion here about non-"killer"
or suboptimal armies, it got me thinking about if the list members
here can offer suggestions about how to handle various bad matchups.

Ewan generously offered several tips from my game against him, where I
played essentially an all cavalry Northern Dynasty Chinese army
against his Tang Chinese. I could have thought more flexibly in my
deployment, using forced marchers, and I could have used brush terrain
selections to have given his close order foot some problems.

The next game, I played an army of Midianite double camel rider
archers! I still have no idea what I could have attempted against this
force with my all cavalry army.

But I'm hoping for tips of how to handle bad matchups in general,
beyond only the narrow events of my games at Pointcon.

What does a knight army attempt when coming up against an elephant or
camel army?

How do Romans try to deal with knight armies?

Or what are the other undesirable matchups out there that I'm probably
not even aware of, and how do you deal with them?

These would be great tips for beginners, especially for ones that what
to play armies that they are historically interested in, but may not
be the most flexible or optimal choices.

Thanks guys.

[Ewan McNay]

Peter Celella wrote:

>
> After the Pointcon games, and the discussion here about non-"killer"
> or suboptimal armies, it got me thinking about if the list members
> here can offer suggestions about how to handle various bad matchups.
>
> Ewan generously offered several tips from my game against him, where I
> played essentially an all cavalry Northern Dynasty Chinese army
> against his Tang Chinese. I could have thought more flexibly in my
> deployment, using forced marchers, and I could have used brush terrain
> selections to have given his close order foot some problems.

...but you correctly note that you would still have been out of luck
trying for a head-on fight. Hence the suggestion of a flank march also.

> The next game, I played an army of Midianite double camel rider
> archers! I still have no idea what I could have attempted against this
> force with my all cavalry army.

Yeah - not a lot, if the camels are handled competently. You just have to
maximise what you *can*: trying for converted charges after routing or
breaking through LI, for instance; massing in column for charges against a
single camel unit, which has the effect of both reducing bowfire damage
and increasing the chances of at least one unit rolling long if the camels
are evading; etc. Placing brush, again, although the massed Midianite LI
will be happyish with that. Using consecutive charges, or flanking
manouvres, to force the camels to keep making counters which they fail
half the time.

Part of the requirement is to accept that 'normal' play is not going to
work, and so try other stuff that might, rather than just go with the whimper.

> But I'm hoping for tips of how to handle bad matchups in general,
> beyond only the narrow events of my games at Pointcon.
>
> What does a knight army attempt when coming up against an elephant or
> camel army?

Kill everything that isn't an elephant - i.e., get your support troops
(which are likely designed to face elephants) against the El while you
kill his support; they're better against camels than a cav army is,
because bowfire is not as effective. [There's really only one serious
camel army, and it has problems against foot forces, basically.]

Knight armies are rarely as homogeneous as your cav force was.
Homogeneous armies should at least be able to have a target army type in
mind to destroy; I'm not convinced that cav/LC armies fulfill this
requirement.

> How do Romans try to deal with knight armies?

Romans against SHK (or even SHC, really) are in trouble with the legions.
So, again, maximise what you do have - likely better light troops,
better terrain troops, good shooting.

There're not magic bullets here. Trying to pick a force that is *not*
behind the eight-ball very often is a big part of army selection - and the
reason why LIR have not been seen too much at top level tournaments,
despite being wonderful against anything that is *not* a knight.

Sorry not to be more useful .

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:

>
> There're not magic bullets here. Trying to pick a force that is *not*
> behind the eight-ball very often is a big part of army selection -
and the
> reason why LIR have not been seen too much at top level tournaments,
> despite being wonderful against anything that is *not* a knight.
>
> Sorry not to be more useful .

Ewan - this kind of stuff is incredibly useful to me. And I wasn't
hoping for a 'magic' bullet anyway. I was just theorizing that you can
learn more about how to fight Warrior successfully from bad matchups
and how to deal with them. A lot of the discussion here seems to
center on how to get good matchups, often about how to get a 'killer'
army that can take on all comers. I was trying to shift things into
talking about how best to deal with things that you are NOT optimized
to go up against.

For instance, most people seem to think that EIR or Marian Roman
armies, if they perform successfully (even if not at the NICT level),
are the kind of thing that would attract new players. But most people
seem to think these armies have serious weaknesses. In general, I
would prefer to hear (and probably learn more about how to play
Warrior better) how to make sub-optimal armies work, rather than how
to put together another killer 'Timurid' list.

I know that a lot of this is probably basic stuff to veterans, but
just the few things I've read in the last couple of days, have I think
already started me on a paradigm shift for how to approach games.

Thanks again for the help.

Peter

[Derek Downs]

I know that a lot of this is probably basic stuff to veterans, but
just the few things I've read in the last couple of days, have I think
already started me on a paradigm shift for how to approach games.

Thanks again for the help.

Peter

Peter, the single most important thing in building a list is balance. You
need troops to do everything in your list. In this I mean you need close to hold
the center, lights to skirmish where you are refusing the flank and good cav,
elephants, or chariots to punch with. The key is to punch with a ton of stuff
so as to overwhelm an area. Also nice to have are good terrain troops that
also double for anti elephant armies. The trick is to get all this variety of
stuff where and when they are supposed to be on the table. It is not easy. Just
play tons of games and remember what works and most important remember what
doesn't. :)

Derek


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

[joncleaves]

First, Pete, I am the only guy (currently) with significant experience with FHE
Timurids. I can tell you, they have their weaknesses...lol

Second, you said:

<<For instance, most people seem to think that EIR or Marian Roman
armies, if they perform successfully (even if not at the NICT level),
are the kind of thing that would attract new players. But most people
seem to think these armies have serious weaknesses.>>

I think those are excellent armies that have not seen someone yet take them to
their full potential andI have played Marians in a tournament with no small
success. I think there is currently too little of what, for example, Sean Scott
is doing with the Swiss - throwing out the 'conventional wisom' and taking
enough time with an army to work out how to use it successfully.

One challenge to doing that is not having enough time to game. In those
situations, players fall back on the tried and true Kn- or El- combined arms
armies because they are a known, safe solution that does not require a lot of
prep to get to know. Lack of time reduces the options open to a player, and
understandably so.

But the more we see guys take what some might call 'second-tier' armies and
spend a year or more with them, the more success we see.

J


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 29 Peter Celella said: ---

>
> The next game, I played an army of Midianite double camel rider
> archers! I still have no idea what I could have attempted against this
> force with my all cavalry army.

If you have 12 figure units of HC L,B,Sh you might want to consider dismounting
some of the into 8 figure units of HI LTS,B,Sh (might be 2HCT,B,Sh in the case
of some Oriental armies). These are still vulnerable to mass camel bowfire, but
with a little screening/splitting fire, they can be very useful against camels.

Make him charge your lights. Every LI unit should waver test until it dies in
the face of shooting. Charge through your lights if you have any decent chance
of catching evading camels.

Take what shooting you have, and concentrate it somewhere. Shieldless MCm are
incredibly vulnerable to shooting.

Use terrain. Here's an extreme idea, and perhaps not practical, but it's
illustrative of what you can do: suppose you get a village pick on one of your
flanks. Why not force march your whole army into the village? But, you say,
cavalry sucks in a village. Sure, but so do camels. You're going to suck less
than he will. The point is he's inviting you to play the game on his terms,
namely out in the open, and you are free to decline and invite him to play the
game on your terms.
>
> But I'm hoping for tips of how to handle bad matchups in general,
> beyond only the narrow events of my games at Pointcon.
>
> What does a knight army attempt when coming up against an elephant or
> camel army?

Knight armies in Warrior seldom win on the strength of their knights alone. And,
indeed, this is quite historical. The knight is the highest profile troop type
from the Middle Ages, but if we stop and think about it, this was a dying troop
type. The knight evolved into what? Nothing. Shock cavalry withered away over
the next several centuries. This was because of improved technology in missile
weapons. It is the evolution of the missile weapon that really dominates the
Middle Ages, with two extreme examples. On the one hand you have the longbow, a
weapon of unmatched power _if_ a skilled archer dedicates a lifetime to its use.
That worked great for England, which needed to use skill per soldier to
compensate for its lack of population. Elsewhere, where manpower was readily
available, it was the crossbow that became the deadly missile weapon of choice.
Why? Because it had penetration power comparable to the longbow, though not the
rate of fire, and -- more importantly -- any idiot, regardless of training,
could fire a crossbow. Most soldiers, without significant training, couldn't
even _draw_ a longbow.

So here's a shocking idea: base your knight army in Warrior on what worked
historically. If your knight army has good support troops in the form of decent
archers, you will find ways to win even against adverse opponents like elephant
armies.

History does actually serve us pretty well as a tactical guideline in Warrior.
It just isn't always the "Hollywood" version of history.

>
> How do Romans try to deal with knight armies?
>

If you are playing LIR, then you have (a) a lot of shooting that (b) can be
dealt out without being highly vulnerable to return fire. This means you should
be able to outshoot a knight army's support troops. Eventually you are going to
have to absorb a knight charge somewhere, but with careful play you should be
facing a charge from knights that are tired, hopefully disordered, and with
precarious flank support if you've done your job against the support troops.
Assuming you can absorb said charge (or charges) without routing at contact,
you should then be able to respond with some effective follow up charges next
bound into flanks and/or exposed overlapping elements.

If you are playing Marians or some such, then think about how the combination of
fulcrum and replace in combat rules change the balance. With fulcrum you often
won't lose to cavalry at contact, and you certainly won't rout at contact. With
replace in combat coming in next bound, you should win, and against a careless
opponent can even rout his cav (even if it's knights). The challenge is that
you can't replace in combat all along the line without drastically shortening
your line, and so you have to channel the battle to a point of concentration
where you can respond effectively. Given the quality of light troops and rough
terrain troops available, you should be able to achieve this channeling effect.

> Or what are the other undesirable matchups out there that I'm probably
> not even aware of, and how do you deal with them?
>

Well, there are countless undesirable matchups. It might be useful for us to try
and enumerate the most common ones. But, there is an approach that works as
often as any:

Give your opponent as many chances as possible to make a mistake.

Here's what I mean. The straight ahead matchups might look grim: your knights
against his elephants, or your HC against his LTS,B guys. But even with bad
matchups, you can win if your opponent:
- fails to protect a flank
- fails a critical counter to get a vulnerable unit out of the way
- runs out of prompt points before getting that last critical charge off
- opens a shieldless side to shooting
- doesn't anticipate your flank march
- overlooks an ambush in an unlikely spot

The list could go on. But the point is, you can't just march straight ahead to
your death. You have to give your opponent some tactical complexity to deal
with. Make him guard against that woods on the flank as a possible ambuch site.
Make him figure out how to get his elephants past that brush to get to your cav.
Make him guard against a possible flank march. Do something -- anything -- that
requires careful tactical execution on his part to succeed.

Odds are that a number of opponents even with a matchup advantage are going to
screw up the execution a fairly high percentage of the time, if not
disastrously, at least enough to give you an opening. And that's all you're
looking for, is an opening. In an unfavorable matchup, if it all comes down to
die rolls and the dice gods just don't smile on you, then you shouldn't feel
bad. You've done the best you can and made a game of it. And sometimes -- more
often than you might think, and more often as you gain experience -- you'll
actually pull it off and win.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Message to self: when replying to a list question, wait a day to see
whether Mark is about to say something similar, only much better .

Mark Stone wrote:

> --- On March 29 Peter Celella said: ---
>
>
>>The next game, I played an army of Midianite double camel rider
>>archers! I still have no idea what I could have attempted against this
>>force with my all cavalry army.
>
>
> If you have 12 figure units of HC L,B,Sh you might want to consider
dismounting
> some of the into 8 figure units of HI LTS,B,Sh (might be 2HCT,B,Sh in the case
> of some Oriental armies). These are still vulnerable to mass camel bowfire,
but
> with a little screening/splitting fire, they can be very useful against
camels.
>
> Make him charge your lights. Every LI unit should waver test until it dies in
> the face of shooting. Charge through your lights if you have any decent chance
> of catching evading camels.
>
> Take what shooting you have, and concentrate it somewhere. Shieldless MCm are
> incredibly vulnerable to shooting.
>
> Use terrain. Here's an extreme idea, and perhaps not practical, but it's
> illustrative of what you can do: suppose you get a village pick on one of your
> flanks. Why not force march your whole army into the village? But, you say,
> cavalry sucks in a village. Sure, but so do camels. You're going to suck less
> than he will. The point is he's inviting you to play the game on his terms,
> namely out in the open, and you are free to decline and invite him to play the
> game on your terms.
>
>>But I'm hoping for tips of how to handle bad matchups in general,
>>beyond only the narrow events of my games at Pointcon.
>>
>>What does a knight army attempt when coming up against an elephant or
>>camel army?
>
>
> Knight armies in Warrior seldom win on the strength of their knights alone.
And,
> indeed, this is quite historical. The knight is the highest profile troop type
> from the Middle Ages, but if we stop and think about it, this was a dying
troop
> type. The knight evolved into what? Nothing. Shock cavalry withered away over
> the next several centuries. This was because of improved technology in missile
> weapons. It is the evolution of the missile weapon that really dominates the
> Middle Ages, with two extreme examples. On the one hand you have the longbow,
a
> weapon of unmatched power _if_ a skilled archer dedicates a lifetime to its
use.
> That worked great for England, which needed to use skill per soldier to
> compensate for its lack of population. Elsewhere, where manpower was readily
> available, it was the crossbow that became the deadly missile weapon of
choice.
> Why? Because it had penetration power comparable to the longbow, though not
the
> rate of fire, and -- more importantly -- any idiot, regardless of training,
> could fire a crossbow. Most soldiers, without significant training, couldn't
> even _draw_ a longbow.
>
> So here's a shocking idea: base your knight army in Warrior on what worked
> historically. If your knight army has good support troops in the form of
decent
> archers, you will find ways to win even against adverse opponents like
elephant
> armies.
>
> History does actually serve us pretty well as a tactical guideline in Warrior.
> It just isn't always the "Hollywood" version of history.
>
>
>>How do Romans try to deal with knight armies?
>>
>
>
> If you are playing LIR, then you have (a) a lot of shooting that (b) can be
> dealt out without being highly vulnerable to return fire. This means you
should
> be able to outshoot a knight army's support troops. Eventually you are going
to
> have to absorb a knight charge somewhere, but with careful play you should be
> facing a charge from knights that are tired, hopefully disordered, and with
> precarious flank support if you've done your job against the support troops.
> Assuming you can absorb said charge (or charges) without routing at contact,
> you should then be able to respond with some effective follow up charges next
> bound into flanks and/or exposed overlapping elements.
>
> If you are playing Marians or some such, then think about how the combination
of
> fulcrum and replace in combat rules change the balance. With fulcrum you often
> won't lose to cavalry at contact, and you certainly won't rout at contact.
With
> replace in combat coming in next bound, you should win, and against a careless
> opponent can even rout his cav (even if it's knights). The challenge is that
> you can't replace in combat all along the line without drastically shortening
> your line, and so you have to channel the battle to a point of concentration
> where you can respond effectively. Given the quality of light troops and rough
> terrain troops available, you should be able to achieve this channeling
effect.
>
>
>>Or what are the other undesirable matchups out there that I'm probably
>>not even aware of, and how do you deal with them?
>>
>
>
> Well, there are countless undesirable matchups. It might be useful for us to
try
> and enumerate the most common ones. But, there is an approach that works as
> often as any:
>
> Give your opponent as many chances as possible to make a mistake.
>
> Here's what I mean. The straight ahead matchups might look grim: your knights
> against his elephants, or your HC against his LTS,B guys. But even with bad
> matchups, you can win if your opponent:
> - fails to protect a flank
> - fails a critical counter to get a vulnerable unit out of the way
> - runs out of prompt points before getting that last critical charge off
> - opens a shieldless side to shooting
> - doesn't anticipate your flank march
> - overlooks an ambush in an unlikely spot
>
> The list could go on. But the point is, you can't just march straight ahead to
> your death. You have to give your opponent some tactical complexity to deal
> with. Make him guard against that woods on the flank as a possible ambuch
site.
> Make him figure out how to get his elephants past that brush to get to your
cav.
> Make him guard against a possible flank march. Do something -- anything --
that
> requires careful tactical execution on his part to succeed.
>
> Odds are that a number of opponents even with a matchup advantage are going to
> screw up the execution a fairly high percentage of the time, if not
> disastrously, at least enough to give you an opening. And that's all you're
> looking for, is an opening. In an unfavorable matchup, if it all comes down to
> die rolls and the dice gods just don't smile on you, then you shouldn't feel
> bad. You've done the best you can and made a game of it. And sometimes -- more
> often than you might think, and more often as you gain experience -- you'll
> actually pull it off and win.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Chriss]

Mark Stone said:


> > The list could go on. But the point is, you can't just march straight
> ahead to
> > your death. You have to give your opponent some tactical complexity to
> deal
> > with. Make him guard against that woods on the flank as a possible
> ambuch site.
> > Make him figure out how to get his elephants past that brush to get to
> your cav.
> > Make him guard against a possible flank march. Do something -- anything
> -- that
> > requires careful tactical execution on his part to succeed.
> >
> > Odds are that a number of opponents even with a matchup advantage are
> going to
> > screw up the execution a fairly high percentage of the time, if not
> > disastrously, at least enough to give you an opening. And that's all
> you're
> > looking for, is an opening.



Well, I am often so much in awe of these posts, that it seems silly to
even comment, but I just want to add that those of us who inveterately and
invariably play *suboptimal lists* (like non-Spartan, non-Syracusan
hoplites; or Hellenistic Greeks, heavy on the pigs), see the game in
precisely this way, and we understand that we have not, by mere choice of
nationality and time period of army, done anything to minimize our chances
of losing, which are usually quite good. Perhaps we might have picked more
versatile or more point-cost effective armies. That's not the point for
us. The point is *being* (in a historical, or even in a mythological
sense) who we are or would like to be, and doing the best we can under the
circumstances. Hence my reluctance to change things like the strategems in
rule 16 or the ability to aggravate an opponent by inventive terrain
strategy per rule 14.31. Think about the function of the historicity of
the game. Fantasy games are just as challenging from a purely competitive
standpoint, but they lack the pageantry and fascination of reliving
military history. Ours is not just a hobby, nor just a game. It is a
simulation, and thus an exercise in understanding, if even only
indirectly, human history.




Greek