Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

> But beyond Mark Sonte's suggestion to sit way back off the feature to
> encourage the person placing it to cross and rally from their disorder
> (potentially problematic if you give up too much table _depth_ in
> doing so however)...
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum or not)
> placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably complete
> line of TF's etc?
>

As for TF's other than stone (hey, don't ask me...only one army I know of
gets stone, anyway, and I have little to offer if you don't have bombards
or stonethrowers) you can shoot them to pieces quite nicely with fire
arrows or artillery. In 7th, foot armed with 2HCW could also chop them
down (Any chance of that returning Jon?). Long ago I wrote a monograph on
how to tear up Hussite wagons in this way.

As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled one
parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the table
(unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens he'll be
scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That gives
him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm), since the
river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge that
negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the river,
the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2 is the
main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to shoot
him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break somebody
there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI TROOPS.
Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's say
Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with only 80
paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming across
with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls don't
charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element frontage you
are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank: total=26
casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll up, on a
frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of recoil
almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the 2HCW you
still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
problem?

The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and preferably lots
of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey, if you
don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable to a lot
of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two that
always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could damage his
wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary missiles
are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
strategems.

Greek

[Frank Gilson]

Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.

How?

Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
two of my bodies, but JUST less.

Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
to hit either.

Also, approaching across the bridge at some point you'll have to
stop as you'll be at 40p from one or both the bodies flanking the
bridge.

If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an
opponent such as Gauls want to sit across a river?

Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but
it would seem that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not
vikings.

As Hrisikos suggest, missile fire, especially artillery, is the best
way to punish someone sitting behind a non-cover obstacle. Move it
up, concentrate it, blast away.

Quality loose order foot are very useful to do the necessary cross
obstacle assault, once you've softened up the target.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum
or not)
> > placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably
complete
> > line of TF's etc?
> >
>
> As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled
one
> parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the
table
> (unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens
he'll be
> scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That
gives
> him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm),
since the
> river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge
that
> negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the
river,
> the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2
is the
> main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to
shoot
> him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
> maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break
somebody
> there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI
TROOPS.
> Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's
say
> Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with
only 80
> paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming
across
> with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls
don't
> charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element
frontage you
> are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
> casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank:
total=26
> casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll
up, on a
> frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of
recoil
> almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the
2HCW you
> still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
> problem?
>
> The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and
preferably lots
> of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey,
if you
> don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable
to a lot
> of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two
that
> always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could
damage his
> wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary
missiles
> are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
> strategems.
>
> Greek

[Tim Grimmett]

I want to highlight Frank's point as some observers have overlooked my original
point that it was the Moldavian combination of knights and light cav that lead
to the defensive tactics in question. In the games we have going on right now,
Mongols are creaming LMI-based barbarian armies for much the same reason.

One other point, I question the notion that defending a minor water feature
makes this feature impregnable. For LMI with a LTS, that may in fact be the
case; for Greek hoplites facing knights, there is little doubt that is true.
But when you run the numbers on J-armed foot the knights are still hitting at
5*4 and receiving 5*0 or 5*1. Is this really impregnable? I think the answer is
more murky than what I've read so far.

I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where sitting behind
a minor water feature is the only viable alternative to getting overrun.
(Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed Celtiberians also comes to mind). No
amount of frontage manipulation solves certain basic matchup problems.



Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...> wrote:
If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an opponent such
as Gauls want to sit across a river?

Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but it would seem
that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not vikings.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

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

[Ewan McNay]

Tim Grimmett wrote:

> I want to highlight Frank's point as some observers have overlooked my
> original point that it was the Moldavian combination of knights and
> light cav that lead to the defensive tactics in question. In the games
> we have going on right now, Mongols are creaming LMI-based barbarian
> armies for much the same reason.

If Mongols are ever having to cross a mwf there is something wrong .

> One other point, I question the notion that defending a minor water
> feature makes this feature impregnable. For LMI with a LTS, that may
> in fact be the case; for Greek hoplites facing knights, there is little
> doubt that is true. But when you run the numbers on J-armed foot the
> knights are still hitting at 5*4 and receiving 5*0 or 5*1. Is this
> really impregnable? I think the answer is more murky than what I've
> read so far.

Agreed.

> I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where
> sitting behind a minor water feature is the only viable alternative to
> getting overrun. (Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed Celtiberians
> also comes to mind). No amount of frontage manipulation solves certain
> basic matchup problems.

And agreed again. Oddly, it was double-armed Spanish foot against my
Seleucid pike/elephants that caused me to place my one-and-only
competition mwf, also. That was worthwhile for the Carthaginian
slingers-of-doom sequence, though .

See, here's the rub. People have been saying that losing 5-3 is better
than winning 1-0 or similar. Agreed. But, how is losing 5-0 better than
winning 1-0 or drawing? It's that latter prospect that brings on the
defended-line desire.

[joncleaves]

<< Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.

How?

Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
two of my bodies, but JUST less.

Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
to hit either.>>


Ok, we're lacking a diagram, but why can't one of the bodies be charged? You
don't line up until after the charge is made and only if you can line up.
This is not the intent of Warrior and so if there is some rules language in the
way, I need to know what it is...

man, I HATE this sort of thing..lol

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:41:28 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: beating sitters


Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.

How?

Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
two of my bodies, but JUST less.

Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
to hit either.

Also, approaching across the bridge at some point you'll have to
stop as you'll be at 40p from one or both the bodies flanking the
bridge.

If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an
opponent such as Gauls want to sit across a river?

Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but
it would seem that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not
vikings.

As Hrisikos suggest, missile fire, especially artillery, is the best
way to punish someone sitting behind a non-cover obstacle. Move it
up, concentrate it, blast away.

Quality loose order foot are very useful to do the necessary cross
obstacle assault, once you've softened up the target.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum
or not)
> > placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably
complete
> > line of TF's etc?
> >
>
> As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled
one
> parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the
table
> (unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens
he'll be
> scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That
gives
> him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm),
since the
> river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge
that
> negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the
river,
> the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2
is the
> main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to
shoot
> him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
> maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break
somebody
> there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI
TROOPS.
> Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's
say
> Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with
only 80
> paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming
across
> with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls
don't
> charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element
frontage you
> are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
> casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank:
total=26
> casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll
up, on a
> frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of
recoil
> almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the
2HCW you
> still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
> problem?
>
> The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and
preferably lots
> of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey,
if you
> don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable
to a lot
> of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two
that
> always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could
damage his
> wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary
missiles
> are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
> strategems.
>
> Greek





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

I *think* you could set this up so that the front faces of the units
involved are not accessible - because they're actually past the bridge
'opening.'

Let me try ascii art. View this in a fixed font:


AAAA......BBBB
AAAA......BBBB
| |
~~~~~| |~~~~~
|^^|
||
1111
1111

OK. So A and B are my units, 'defending' a bridge across the river (~~~).
The gap between them is 1.2 elements wide or some such, and in fact you
could imagine that their front edges even nose past the end of the bridge.

Unit 1 would like to charge across the bridge. Frank's argument is that
you can't go into the gap between the two units to hit a flank, and have
nowhere else to contact, I think.




JonCleaves@... wrote:
> << Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.
>
> How?
>
> Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
> two of my bodies, but JUST less.
>
> Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
> to hit either.>>
>
>
> Ok, we're lacking a diagram, but why can't one of the bodies be charged? You
don't line up until after the charge is made and only if you can line up.
> This is not the intent of Warrior and so if there is some rules language in
the way, I need to know what it is...
>
> man, I HATE this sort of thing..lol
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:41:28 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: beating sitters
>
>
> Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.
>
> How?
>
> Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
> two of my bodies, but JUST less.
>
> Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
> to hit either.
>
> Also, approaching across the bridge at some point you'll have to
> stop as you'll be at 40p from one or both the bodies flanking the
> bridge.
>
> If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an
> opponent such as Gauls want to sit across a river?
>
> Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but
> it would seem that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not
> vikings.
>
> As Hrisikos suggest, missile fire, especially artillery, is the best
> way to punish someone sitting behind a non-cover obstacle. Move it
> up, concentrate it, blast away.
>
> Quality loose order foot are very useful to do the necessary cross
> obstacle assault, once you've softened up the target.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum
>
> or not)
>
>>> placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably
>
> complete
>
>>> line of TF's etc?
>>>
>>
>>As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled
>
> one
>
>>parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the
>
> table
>
>>(unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens
>
> he'll be
>
>>scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That
>
> gives
>
>>him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm),
>
> since the
>
>>river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge
>
> that
>
>>negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the
>
> river,
>
>>the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2
>
> is the
>
>>main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to
>
> shoot
>
>>him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
>>maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break
>
> somebody
>
>>there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI
>
> TROOPS.
>
>>Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's
>
> say
>
>>Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with
>
> only 80
>
>>paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming
>
> across
>
>>with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls
>
> don't
>
>>charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element
>
> frontage you
>
>>are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
>>casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank:
>
> total=26
>
>>casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll
>
> up, on a
>
>>frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of
>
> recoil
>
>>almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the
>
> 2HCW you
>
>>still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
>>problem?
>>
>>The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and
>
> preferably lots
>
>>of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey,
>
> if you
>
>>don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable
>
> to a lot
>
>>of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two
>
> that
>
>>always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could
>
> damage his
>
>>wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary
>
> missiles
>
>>are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
>>strategems.
>>
>>Greek
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Turner]

I think one of the original thoughts, and if I'm wrong, I'm certain I
will hear about it, is the post game/in the pub/bar finger pointing
as to "why" the score ended in "small" numbers.

The General who placed the MWF did so because he felt he needed it
tactically, the opposing General looked at this (and being no less
tactically proficient) decided if he sent his troops across the MWF
he was placing himself at a distinct disadvantage.

I believe in "some" post game discussions it has come up that the
second General was somehow at fault for not charging across the MWF
and forcing some sort of conclusion. The General who placed the MWF
has decided to defend the obstacle (defend being used rather
than "Sit"), and the other General has decided not to attack this
obstacle. We should not say, "Well, you should have had a plan for
that", when similarly the player who placed the MWF should also have
had a plan for facing that sort of enemy army.

Having been in an urban area, where the bad guys decided to defend
from a well fortified building, I did not feel compelled to launch my
men across open streets into his building, he made a decision and so
did I. Fortunately in my case (and not in Warrior) I had a 105mm
w/crew a block away available to me. :-)

Mike Turner

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Tim Grimmett wrote:
>
> > I want to highlight Frank's point as some observers have
overlooked my
> > original point that it was the Moldavian combination of knights
and
> > light cav that lead to the defensive tactics in question. In the
games
> > we have going on right now, Mongols are creaming LMI-based
barbarian
> > armies for much the same reason.
>
> If Mongols are ever having to cross a mwf there is something
wrong .
>
> > One other point, I question the notion that defending a minor
water
> > feature makes this feature impregnable. For LMI with a LTS, that
may
> > in fact be the case; for Greek hoplites facing knights, there is
little
> > doubt that is true. But when you run the numbers on J-armed foot
the
> > knights are still hitting at 5*4 and receiving 5*0 or 5*1. Is
this
> > really impregnable? I think the answer is more murky than what
I've
> > read so far.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where
> > sitting behind a minor water feature is the only viable
alternative to
> > getting overrun. (Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed
Celtiberians
> > also comes to mind). No amount of frontage manipulation solves
certain
> > basic matchup problems.
>
> And agreed again. Oddly, it was double-armed Spanish foot against
my
> Seleucid pike/elephants that caused me to place my one-and-only
> competition mwf, also. That was worthwhile for the Carthaginian
> slingers-of-doom sequence, though .
>
> See, here's the rub. People have been saying that losing 5-3 is
better
> than winning 1-0 or similar. Agreed. But, how is losing 5-0
better than
> winning 1-0 or drawing? It's that latter prospect that brings on
the
> defended-line desire.

[joncleaves]

Well, the gap rule is not meant to prevent over bridge charges (obviously) so i
will have to look at this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: beating sitters


I *think* you could set this up so that the front faces of the units
involved are not accessible - because they're actually past the bridge
'opening.'

Let me try ascii art. View this in a fixed font:


AAAA......BBBB
AAAA......BBBB
| |
~~~~~| |~~~~~
|^^|
||
1111
1111

OK. So A and B are my units, 'defending' a bridge across the river (~~~).
The gap between them is 1.2 elements wide or some such, and in fact you
could imagine that their front edges even nose past the end of the bridge.

Unit 1 would like to charge across the bridge. Frank's argument is that
you can't go into the gap between the two units to hit a flank, and have
nowhere else to contact, I think.




JonCleaves@... wrote:
> << Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.
>
> How?
>
> Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
> two of my bodies, but JUST less.
>
> Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
> to hit either.>>
>
>
> Ok, we're lacking a diagram, but why can't one of the bodies be charged? You
don't line up until after the charge is made and only if you can line up.
> This is not the intent of Warrior and so if there is some rules language in
the way, I need to know what it is...
>
> man, I HATE this sort of thing..lol
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:41:28 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: beating sitters
>
>
> Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.
>
> How?
>
> Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
> two of my bodies, but JUST less.
>
> Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
> to hit either.
>
> Also, approaching across the bridge at some point you'll have to
> stop as you'll be at 40p from one or both the bodies flanking the
> bridge.
>
> If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an
> opponent such as Gauls want to sit across a river?
>
> Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but
> it would seem that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not
> vikings.
>
> As Hrisikos suggest, missile fire, especially artillery, is the best
> way to punish someone sitting behind a non-cover obstacle. Move it
> up, concentrate it, blast away.
>
> Quality loose order foot are very useful to do the necessary cross
> obstacle assault, once you've softened up the target.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum
>
> or not)
>
>>> placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably
>
> complete
>
>>> line of TF's etc?
>>>
>>
>>As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled
>
> one
>
>>parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the
>
> table
>
>>(unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens
>
> he'll be
>
>>scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That
>
> gives
>
>>him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm),
>
> since the
>
>>river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge
>
> that
>
>>negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the
>
> river,
>
>>the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2
>
> is the
>
>>main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to
>
> shoot
>
>>him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
>>maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break
>
> somebody
>
>>there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI
>
> TROOPS.
>
>>Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's
>
> say
>
>>Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with
>
> only 80
>
>>paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming
>
> across
>
>>with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls
>
> don't
>
>>charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element
>
> frontage you
>
>>are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
>>casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank:
>
> total=26
>
>>casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll
>
> up, on a
>
>>frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of
>
> recoil
>
>>almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the
>
> 2HCW you
>
>>still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
>>problem?
>>
>>The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and
>
> preferably lots
>
>>of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey,
>
> if you
>
>>don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable
>
> to a lot
>
>>of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two
>
> that
>
>>always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could
>
> damage his
>
>>wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary
>
> missiles
>
>>are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
>>strategems.
>>
>>Greek
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

All good points, Frank. I hadn't thought about that bridge/gap gambit. It
does put a hole in part of my analysis. Thanks. i do agree with your
points on terrain in the previous post also.

Greek



> Ok...I can make it so that you can charge nothing across a bridge.
>
> How?
>
> Directly across the bridge is a less than two element gap between
> two of my bodies, but JUST less.
>
> Nothing for you to charge, and no open flanks of either body for you
> to hit either.
>
> Also, approaching across the bridge at some point you'll have to
> stop as you'll be at 40p from one or both the bodies flanking the
> bridge.
>
> If you have substantial effective loose order foot, why would an
> opponent such as Gauls want to sit across a river?
>
> Not that I see much, or any, river sitting in tournament play, but
> it would seem that gauls would sit across a river from lancers, not
> vikings.
>
> As Hrisikos suggest, missile fire, especially artillery, is the best
> way to punish someone sitting behind a non-cover obstacle. Move it
> up, concentrate it, blast away.
>
> Quality loose order foot are very useful to do the necessary cross
> obstacle assault, once you've softened up the target.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any thoughts on how to defeat such a (optimum
> or not)
> > > placement strategy when faced with it? Or with a reasonably
> complete
> > > line of TF's etc?
> > >
> >
> > As for minor rivers, okay. Let's assume your opponent has rolled
> one
> > parallel to the long side of the table and on his own side of the
> table
> > (unlikely as that is--see prior post). Half the time that happens
> he'll be
> > scrunched in behind this water feature IN HIS OWN REAR ZONE. That
> gives
> > him a maximum deployment depth of 200 paces (5 inches in 15mm),
> since the
> > river is at least 40 p wide. You have A RIGHT to place a bridge
> that
> > negates the terrain. Charge across there. As for the rest of the
> river,
> > the fact that unbridged river is an obstacle and deals a minus 2
> is the
> > main rub, if you've got some good LMI/LHI. But the idea here is to
> shoot
> > him with range weapons concentrated at one point (He has much less
> > maneuver room than you do) and force a crossing and/or break
> somebody
> > there. THIS IS ONE REASON MOST ARMIES PACK SOME DECENT LMI/LHI
> TROOPS.
> > Take front rank 2HCW/JLS/Sh LMI, back rank JLS, for example. Let's
> say
> > Wosenstix has his Gauls (LMI,JLS,Sh) sitting behind river with
> only 80
> > paces or so left between him and the table edge. You come slamming
> across
> > with Thracian/Varangian LMI or LHI types described above. Gauls
> don't
> > charge--this would cancel the whole sit strategy. Per element
> frontage you
> > are 3@5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous) -2 (obstacle) for 18
> > casualties front rank, plus 2@5 for 8 casualties back rank:
> total=26
> > casualties. Gauls fight 5@3+1 (JLS) is 15. You win. If you roll
> up, on a
> > frontage basis you break him. Even if you don't he'll run out of
> recoil
> > almost immediately and then you'll break him. Even without the
> 2HCW you
> > still win because you charge impetuously and he doesn't. What's the
> > problem?
> >
> > The problem is that you have to have loose order foot and
> preferably lots
> > of missiles or you are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But, hey,
> if you
> > don't have knights, or elephants, or whatever, you're vulnerable
> to a lot
> > of other stuff. That's the way the game works. We had a guy or two
> that
> > always ran Hussites, so I had to come up with a list that could
> damage his
> > wagons and flush him out. This is why strategems like incindiary
> missiles
> > are important and not cheesy. You need them to counteract other
> > strategems.
> >
> > Greek
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
> 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.
>

[Bill Chriss]

> I want to highlight Frank's point as some observers have overlooked my
> original point that it was the Moldavian combination of knights and
> light cav that lead to the defensive tactics in question. In the
> games we have going on right now, Mongols are creaming LMI-based
> barbarian armies for much the same reason.
>
> One other point, I question the notion that defending a minor water
> feature makes this feature impregnable. For LMI with a LTS, that may in
> fact be the case; for Greek hoplites facing knights, there is little
> doubt that is true. But when you run the numbers on J-armed foot the
> knights are still hitting at 5*4 and receiving 5*0 or 5*1. Is this
> really impregnable? I think the answer is more murky than what I've read
> so far.
>
> I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where sitting
> behind a minor water feature is the only viable alternative to getting
> overrun. (Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed Celtiberians also comes
> to mind). No amount of frontage manipulation solves certain basic
> matchup problems.
>


Yes. Agreed, Tim, and no criticism intended. I too am concerned about
Mongols, and n the absence of some real dice help in terrain selection, I
suppose i will have to deploy *cowboy style*, which is to say by circling
the wagons and deploying with the hopplites on the outside of the circle.
Otherwise I suspect I'll be Crassusized, as in the Battle of Carrhae!!


Greek

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Well said, Mike. I've been in just this sort of situation when playing my
Teutonic Knights against a Parthian player. The Parthian player (who lives in
St. Louis and is a SUPER decent guy) felt that my then wedging knights with
their extra 40 paces of charge/movement was too much of an advantage, so he
threw up a Minor water feature across the whole frontage of the table. It
annoyed both of us that the other would not attack and it killed both of our
tournament scores as neither would. To be honest, I suppose that I can
understand my opponent's concerns, but I didn't like the situation.

kelly

turner1118 <Turnerm@...> wrote:
I think one of the original thoughts, and if I'm wrong, I'm certain I
will hear about it, is the post game/in the pub/bar finger pointing
as to "why" the score ended in "small" numbers.

The General who placed the MWF did so because he felt he needed it
tactically, the opposing General looked at this (and being no less
tactically proficient) decided if he sent his troops across the MWF
he was placing himself at a distinct disadvantage.

I believe in "some" post game discussions it has come up that the
second General was somehow at fault for not charging across the MWF
and forcing some sort of conclusion. The General who placed the MWF
has decided to defend the obstacle (defend being used rather
than "Sit"), and the other General has decided not to attack this
obstacle. We should not say, "Well, you should have had a plan for
that", when similarly the player who placed the MWF should also have
had a plan for facing that sort of enemy army.

Having been in an urban area, where the bad guys decided to defend
from a well fortified building, I did not feel compelled to launch my
men across open streets into his building, he made a decision and so
did I. Fortunately in my case (and not in Warrior) I had a 105mm
w/crew a block away available to me. :-)

Mike Turner

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Tim Grimmett wrote:
>
> > I want to highlight Frank's point as some observers have
overlooked my
> > original point that it was the Moldavian combination of knights
and
> > light cav that lead to the defensive tactics in question. In the
games
> > we have going on right now, Mongols are creaming LMI-based
barbarian
> > armies for much the same reason.
>
> If Mongols are ever having to cross a mwf there is something
wrong .
>
> > One other point, I question the notion that defending a minor
water
> > feature makes this feature impregnable. For LMI with a LTS, that
may
> > in fact be the case; for Greek hoplites facing knights, there is
little
> > doubt that is true. But when you run the numbers on J-armed foot
the
> > knights are still hitting at 5*4 and receiving 5*0 or 5*1. Is
this
> > really impregnable? I think the answer is more murky than what
I've
> > read so far.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where
> > sitting behind a minor water feature is the only viable
alternative to
> > getting overrun. (Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed
Celtiberians
> > also comes to mind). No amount of frontage manipulation solves
certain
> > basic matchup problems.
>
> And agreed again. Oddly, it was double-armed Spanish foot against
my
> Seleucid pike/elephants that caused me to place my one-and-only
> competition mwf, also. That was worthwhile for the Carthaginian
> slingers-of-doom sequence, though .
>
> See, here's the rub. People have been saying that losing 5-3 is
better
> than winning 1-0 or similar. Agreed. But, how is losing 5-0
better than
> winning 1-0 or drawing? It's that latter prospect that brings on
the
> defended-line desire.




SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Tim wrote:
I remain convinced there are certain limited circumstances where sitting
> behind a minor water feature is the only viable alternative to getting
> overrun. (Hoplites vs a Spanish army HTW-armed Celtiberians also comes
> to mind). No amount of frontage manipulation solves certain basic
> matchup problems.



This is a real problem. Ever since Hutchby and Clark of WRG fame/infamy came out
with Spanish armed with the infantry slaying HTW,JLS,Sh combination, most
infantry has become a speed bump that I'm not so sure should. Ofcourse now the
pandora's box is wide open now that Moogs and other high moral foot like the
spanish (who are merc whores and found in many classical armies as such)are
armed this way. I just can't imagine how a two element unit of such armed LMI
could smash 4 element Pikemen such as the Swiss or Alex's boys and always do so
on even dice or by rolling down one (their B morale so who cares if you go down
1, right?). This is to say both have even dice. Oh well, the game is what it is
I suppose. It's the best game out there and by far the best supported imho.



kelly




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

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

[Frank Gilson]

Yes, Ewan is correct. The point is that the gap rule prevents a
flank of either body across the bridge being contacted. Thus,
because each such body is defending the bank of the minor water
feature, any charging body against either has to go across such a
feature and not over the bridge. This is especially true as the
bridge is only one element wide, so there's no 'wiggle' room for the
charging body.

How can you solve this? Hmmm, make bridges two elements wide! I'm
ok with that for tournament purposes, even though those are some
reallllly wide bridges.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Well, the gap rule is not meant to prevent over bridge charges
(obviously) so i will have to look at this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:30 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: beating sitters
>
>
> I *think* you could set this up so that the front faces of the
units
> involved are not accessible - because they're actually past the
bridge
> 'opening.'
>
> Let me try ascii art. View this in a fixed font:
>
>
> AAAA......BBBB
> AAAA......BBBB
> | |
> ~~~~~| |~~~~~
> |^^|
> ||
> 1111
> 1111
>
> OK. So A and B are my units, 'defending' a bridge across the
river (~~~).
> The gap between them is 1.2 elements wide or some such, and in
fact you
> could imagine that their front edges even nose past the end of the
bridge.
>
> Unit 1 would like to charge across the bridge. Frank's argument
is that
> you can't go into the gap between the two units to hit a flank,
and have
> nowhere else to contact, I think.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/2/2005 07:06:23 Central Standard Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

John--

I think that on bound 2 the LMI no longer gets the -2 for defending an
obstacle since the LMI recoiled as a result if H2H in bound one. The obstacle
is
not regarded as on higher ground (I've asked Jon this question before).





Tim is correct on both counts.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/2/2005 06:40:53 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

HK recoil or break-off, disordered and tired
note that the HK 40p follow-up _still_ does not take them clear of
the obstacle presented by the river bank

Considering the relative cost, and that the second bound above
therefore likely includes other Guals coming in on the flank(s), and
that even with the Irr A roll-up I am not sure the Gauls would break
outright - the odds of the HK disappearing in a mass of LMI looks
likely.



This begs the question why a second HK is not *now* hitting the LMI. Too
often these sterile examples show fights that make no sense militarily. Even
without the obstacle, would 300 men expect to win long term against 600 men
they did not break on contact?

Also, there is a mistake here. After the recoil, the LMI is no longer
defending the obstacle, so the -2 does not apply on the second bound. The -2
is
not for 'as long as any part of the attacker is touching the obstacle.' It is
for the enemy defending it and once pushed away from the edge of the mwf,
the -2 no longer applies.

Jon


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