Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

[joncleaves]

Phil
Don't know anything about Byzantines intuitively. Had to go look at lists.
I know of the problem from LIR cataphracts.
I'm rules horse, man. List horse is the long-haired freaky dude!
Jon

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Don, Don, Don....

> The actual rear rank of the real-life unit (as opposed to the figures behind
> the front rank in the game) did not get their lances into the initial
> contact. That is not a single soldier deftly and simultaneously employing
> both a L and a B, it is a mechanic designed to give units the correct amount
> of relative combat power with respect to one another.

That has never been in question. Never have I EVER thought that my 2
ranks of FIGURES represented the ACTUAL two front ranks of fighting men
historically. What my comment was about is that pre Warrior, the
mongols fought 3 figs with L and 3 with B in a charge. My Feudal
English fought 5 figs with L. After the 1.5 rank rule, my army stayed
exactly the same (except no more split bases), and the mongols suddenly
got 5 figs with L, and 3 with B. I am not saying it is historically
inaccurate, just a big change between then and now. The mongols got
measurably stronger with the 1.5 rule, and the knights changed not a
wit. Merely a statement, not a slam. I do not like having figures
count twice in combat (1/2 rear rank gets L, and full rear rank gets bow
- assuming a 2 element deep body of course). It just feels like double
dipping.

Don

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> However, we all must remember that there are, as of this moment, NO Warrior
> army lists. It has not been finally decided what will be in the Mongol,
> Feudal English, Byzantine or any other list.
> Now is the time to make your case (and I mean that literally) for what such
> troops should be armed and armored as.
> Now is NOT the time to debate the 1.5 L rule because of how armies perform in
> lists that were not only not written for Warrior they were, in many cases not
> even written for WRG 7th. I'm sorry too that we have to live with the old
> lists for a while. But we are going to write the new lists to the rules and
> not the rules to the old lists.

peace.

Don

[Ed Forbes]

JonCleaves@...,

No Sir, I have not been "reasonably rebutted". You are side stepping and
avoiding the main crust of the argument. My argument is NOT about weapon
length and numbers of real people able to fight ( this was not brought up
at all ). My argument is that under current rules Norman charging with
crouched lance are no better than "other Syrian or Kurdish cav " of the
same weapon and armor types ( both of book 3 army lists) . They are
worse than similar troops that have bow ( no support shooting). This is
patent nonsense historically. Norman were given wedge in the earlier
wrg systems to highlight the superior hand to hand fighting of these
Norman. Not all Norman received wedge in later lists as they did not
historically have the same historical success against their enemies in a
charge as did these others. This same argument also holds for German
knights getting the wedge and others of similar weapons and armor not as
the Germans were generally better in the charge than others of similar
weapons and armor. The same for all the other cav allowed wedge in the
lists. They were given wedge to highlight their historically superior
success in a charge vs others of similar weapons and morale.

Your second point that the rank and a half and wedge have no relation to
each other in the current rules is also wrong. I very much remember the
discussions on this when the rule was first proposed and it had
everything to do with wedge. The consensus then ( and I still contend
that it is wrong ) was that as there was no real differences in
historical troops and only the weapon and morale mattered, all lance
armed cav should get it.. I see that this attitude is still alive and
well. The rank and a half was to give the effect of wedge and get rid
of the cumbersome game mechanics of actually moving the formation on the
table.

I have been gaming WRG ancient rules off and on since 4th addition. I
find it amusing that many of the arguments over the years do not go away,
they only lie dormant a few years and then come back to life as if they
are new issues.

I await your rebuttal with interest.

Ed Forbes


On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:05:35 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
> Well, I am still not getting it. Are there some Byz lists that have
> front
> rank L and back rank B only that folks think should be all L? Ok,
> fine, give
> Scott some justification.
> Know that I am on your side and no list (Byz, LIR or other) is going
> to go
> out with front L only and back B only unless Scott can show me exact
> cause
> why. However, that statement has nothing at all to do with the 1.5
> rank L
> game mechanic.
>
> <<[someone said] I have never liked the rank and a half for lancers
> as it is
> being done. As this is supposed to simulate shock cav, those armed
> ONLY with
> a lance
> ( no distance weapon ) should get it. There is a big difference in
> the
> mind set of those trained to push to h-t-h and those that have a
> distance
> weapon able hang back.>>
>
> That is not what 1.5 rank L is "supposed to simulate." Since that
> assertion
> is wrong, the rest of your 'argument' really doesn't work. The 1.5
> rank L is
> not trying to show that from 30 feet back a guy with an L can reach
> the
> enemy. It is designed to have L armed troops beat who they should
> beat and
> lose to whom they should lose. Period. P does not reach forward 48
> feet,
> yet sometimes part of the fourth rank of figs fight, but we don't
> have to
> keep revisiting that.
>
> <>
>
> See above. You have been reasonably rebutted, sir. The 1.5 rank L
> in
> Warrior (which has been proven to work exactly as intended in
> hundreds of 7.6
> games) has nothing to do with 'simulating shock cav'. It is a
> mechanical
> improvement in the game structure to produce more historically
> correct
> results.
>
> << Even the army lists that give wedge generally only give it to
> those
> without distance weapons.>>
>
> Because wedge is a hand-to-hand fighting style and therefore would
> be used by
> hand-to-hand troops. The 1.5 lance in Warrior is NOT simulating
> wedge in any
> way and is not related to it.
>
> So, now someone tell me what the problem with EHC is?
>
> Jon
>

>

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> << peace.
>
> Don >>
>
> Don, that was not my upset email tone. I just forgot my !
>
> Jon

Peace is what we say in these parts to let the other party know that
their point is well taken, and we are ok.

Don

Jon,

I must agree with this. Under 7th the old argument of how good the
French were historically and how good the Teutons are on the table,
has caused many an argument. What has happened now is that, instead
of the French knights getting better (or the Germans worse??), ALL L
armed cav have become "better" to the detriment of other cav types.

The Byzantine EHC/HC is a good example where, in trying to level the
playing field, a useful (and bloody expensive) troop type has in
effect been degraded. Under 7th, a Byzantine EHC/HC L/B combo were
equal in base fighting figures to any EHC L unit of the same size.
Now however, the EHC L unit is 66.66% better in the combat due to the
1.5 ranks fighting without the Byzantine getting any such benefit. So
everyone EXCEPT those with L in both ranks is EQUAL in fighting
figures to wedge forming Teutons.

And yes, I enjoy playing the Marukian Byzantine list.



--- In WarriorRules@y..., cncbump@a... wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I find myself starting to lean in the same direction. The rationale
for rank
> and a half lance as I understood it dealt with the performance of
French
> Knights vs German in
> WRG and how they should have borne out historically. The rank and
half have
> made all lancers the equal of the Teutonic Knights and hobbled the
highly
> effective Byzantine Cav which did basically re-conquer the old Roman
empire.
> I wonder if rank and half for lancers should not be reserved for
list
> modifications rather than a universal rule, rather akin to the
ability to
> fight with 1.5 ranks given to those troop types allowed to wedge in
the older
> rule set.
>
> It just seems as we try to simplify the rules, we are losing some of
the
> historical flavor the various armies used to have.
>
> Chris

Jon,

Oops! Fired off my mouth without checking the end of the thread.
Peace it is.

Steve :)

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Peace.

-THANK YOU!!! Jon this is what I was talking about. Not the rank and
half. I can't talk for Greg, but in my Nike Byzantines,this is the
same problem. Thank you Phil for the clarity. I figured out the my
EHC have trouble beating anything above MC.
I agree with you Jon on the game mechanics and that this is really
list problem.(Again Sorry Scott) Hope everyone had a good time at
Cold Wars . Wish I could have made it.
Hopefully , see whoever at POINTCON.
Peace and AMEN
Ed the Byzantinophile



-- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << Thematic Byzantine.
> Theme Reg C HC, 1/2 L, 1/2 B Sh. Option for 1/2 EHC.
>
> Figure for figure this cavalry will lose to any non-
impetetous, Irreg
> C, HC,L,SH, only equipped cavalry 97% of the time. a +3 to even.
> Surly you must perceive this is a problem? >>
>
>
> THAT is a problem. You are the first to define it here. Before
this I could
> only guess that this was what we were talking about as there was a
lot of
> RULES discussion mixed in.
>
> See my other posts. The arming of Byzantine cav figures and any
list rules
> the Byzantines might have is FAR from decided. Again, we welcome
input into
> what it might be. Such input has an infinitely better chance of
having an
> impact if it comes with historical evidence.
>
> Thanks again, Phil.
> Jon

To be frank, I find the whole concept that Byzantine lancers, or many
other lancers, be considered shock cavalry. When you consider the
Byzantine tactics against anything Gothic/Frankish, their whole
strategy for 500 years was based on shooting, shooting and shooting.
I also find the concept of rank and a half silly too. IIRC, the
mounted that fought in depth where seen as inferior in quality and
rarely carried a lance.

-- In WarriorRules@y..., Ed C Forbes <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
> I have never liked the rank and a half for lancers as it is being
done.
>
> As this is supposed to simulate shock cav, those armed ONLY with a
lance
> ( no distance weapon ) should get it. There is a big difference in
the
> mind set of those trained to push to h-t-h and those that have a
distance
> weapon able hang back.
>
> I have yet to hear any reasonable rebuttal to this view. Even the
army
> lists that give wedge generally only give it to those without
distance
> weapons. I discount the light cav from this statement that had been
> given wedge as a way of increasing their historically known
advantage
> over other light cav.
>
> Ed F
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:19:06 -0600 Greg Regets <greg@p...>
> writes:
> > Wait a second ... weren't you on the side of the "Help The Swiss,
> > Because
> > the Rules Screw Them" guys,
> >
> > This is another example of a game forcing history on those that
> > lived it.
> > I'm sure a crafty Byzantine would have put a lance in the back
rank,
> > if they
> > would have known that some day Warrior would let them fight with
it!
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > P.S. I mostly play Comnenen anyway, and they got a big boost with
> > the new
> > rules. There is something wrong there when Basils boys get
screwed
> > and the
> > Comnenans get a boost ... but it eludes me!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >

Since I own DAW, I'll risk the wrath of the equines.

Basically, the mixed cav units are gone. There are all lancer units and
separate horse archer units -- based as LC.

I'm trying to figure out if my horse archers mounted on EHC horses can
reasonably pass as Light Cavalry.

John Meunier


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

[Greg Regets]

Has any thought been given towards how the cavalry of several Byzantine armies
will be handled? The rank and a half rule for lance has really killed the main
power arm of these armies (1/2L, 1/2B armed to be specific). I know these lists
are a bit in the future, but I really don't want to spend the money and time
painting the figures if the army is not going to get some sort of boost.

Thanks ... Greg


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

[joncleaves]

Buy Dark Age Warrior, Greg, and you'll see. :)

[Greg Regets]

Awesome! Shows how far out of the loop I have been. My armies had so much dust
on them I played my Comnenans for two hours before I realized I actually had my
Knights of St. John on the table.

G
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Byzantine Lists


Buy Dark Age Warrior, Greg, and you'll see. :)

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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



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



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

[scott holder]

Purchase Dark Age Warrior to see how the Byzantine lists will be
handled:):)

>>> gar@... 5/15/02 9:21:00 AM >>>
Has any thought been given towards how the cavalry of several Byzantine
armies will be handled? The rank and a half rule for lance has really
killed the main power arm of these armies (1/2L, 1/2B armed to be
specific). I know these lists are a bit in the future, but I really
don't want to spend the money and time painting the figures if the army
is not going to get some sort of boost.

Thanks ... Greg


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



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



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