Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Hmmm, no wonder those greeks started armoring their soldiers....lol

Actually, this is an excellent point, Jon. It is precisely why I
uparmor the front rank of pike or LTS armed Greek foot whenever
possible and play as many LHI thorakitai as possible. It drastically
increases point cost, but I love dancing up with my Achaean
thorakitai in skirmish, firing 12 JLS at foot archers and taking the
bow shot at a minus 1 It is also why I insist that both later and
early hoplites be given the option to uparm any or all to HI. My
Spearpoint LAter Hoplite list (another shameless plug for inclusion
in Classical Warrior) even includes the possibility of a couple of
high morale regular LHI units.


>
> What I will agree with is that close order foot is 'too slow' in
Warrior.
> Not that 80p is unrealistic, but that 80p has one very unfortunate
> characteristic not shared by any other troop type. It can't
charge after a march without
> the enemy's cooperation. (HI marches to 240p, other guy sits, HI
approaches
> 80p, still no charge..).
> In addition, it cannot 'catch' LMI/LHI, which is the real issue
you are
> discussing. MI Spartans would care nothing of Kardakes shooting
if they could nail
> them in a charge.
>
> I considered 'changing' close order foot to 120p in the open,
while keeping
> its terrain difficulties. The issue, in 2000 as now, is that that
is such a
> fundamental 'change' that there is no way to properly playtest the
impacts in
> under a year or two. Given that, no matter how much I want
Warrior to stand on
> its own, our core player base is made up of old 7th players, and
this was too
> much of a change to make on both the grounds of getting Warrior
out before
> 2005 and hugely impacting player army choice.
>
> If a genie appeared and granted me one Warrior wish, it would be
to allow me
> to make this change, which would require a spontaneous and
immediate full
> playtest report based on a 1000 genie-played games that only took
the blink of an
> eye and a magical muzzling of all whines about rules changes.
>
> What *can* be done, is for those who are predisposed to, to play
games using
> this as an x-rule (which for all the various rules complaints out
there, no
> one makes use of). Like EHC skirmishing, I get a lot of periodic
whines about
> it, but I never get a batch of ten playtest reports on the impact
on the game.
> I suggest those who are motivated to see close order foot take a
more
> dominant role play games with 120p movement and record the results
and send them to
> me. Play a tourney with that rule in effect and see what happens.
>
> No one, especially me, says that all games or events need to be
14.0/NASAMW
> standard. Rather than try to verbally convince someone of the
need for change,
> I would recommend building a case based on factual game results of
the impact
> of the change.
>
> Jon



At the risk of being it being perceived as what my son would call an
obvious suck-up move, let me say, Jon, that I think this is a very
reasonable, well thought out, and professional response, better than
any I've ever gotten from any game designer of any kind before. Your
thoughtfulness and willingness to participate in historical
discussions like this without ego and in a real spirit of
scholarship are much appreciated by those of us who see this more as
a historical/intellectual exercise than a competitive sport. Thanks.


Greek

[Larry Essick]

There is no question that JLS equipped regular LHI/LMI are an
undervalued missile troop.

The secret is to be forced to move first, or to have your opponent
obligingly move forward, so that you can get into skirmish. Oh, and
terrain helps on the odd chance that your opponent has mounted
anyplace nearby. :-o

The shooting effects are so powerful, however, that even at a -1 there
is a reasonable chance to inflict casualties on the typical 16 figure
unit.

What we get are ahistorical applications of troops as a result.

The Indians might be a good example of this. They placed their
archers behind the elephants and chariots and used them as a support
to the main effort. In Warrior just the opposite is likely to
occur -- the archers are in large blocks and used as the main thrust
while the elephants and chariots provide support.

I do agree, however, with Jon's POV -- that Warrior cannot be
concerned with ahistorical match ups but must focus on historical
results.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 06:45:48 Central Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
Poorly translated from the Iliad, Wanax Andron as Aggamemnon is named
by Achilles means "Lord of men" or "lord of the meadehall and men".
There were two types of kings (rulers) back then. Rex or "warleader"
and Wanax or "clan/tribe/people leader". Rex is temporary and based
upon reputation, but Wanax appoints the Rex.>>

This, of course, reminds me of the scene in Prince of Thieves where Robin
learns that Hazim's name means "Great One." His response is to ask: "Did you
give yourself this name?" lol


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

> I realize that the answer to this is to make the shooters split
> their fire, but with what? With these kind of point matchups, the
> Greek guy quickly runs out of soak-off units because cheaper
> opposing units occupy his big bruisers.
>
> I also appreciate the suggestions about terrain and strategems. As
I
> have said here before, any Greek player must know these things, and
> I humbly submit that I have lit off more pigs, placed more minor
> rivers, and rolled down more avalanches than anyone else you can
> think of. My point is that Spartans and Marian legionaires
shouldn't
> have to resort to such things against Persian Kardake bowmen or
> unshielded foot archers. There are lots of ways to try to even the
> score, but the point, in my humble opinion, is that shooters have
an
> ahistorical edge, and every seasoned tournament player knows it.
>
> By the way, I know what an andron is, but what is a wanax andron?
> (There are no W's in Greek).
> Greek

Sorry I wasn't trying to infer that you were without knowledge
playing hoplites :)

I love the hoplites as well, as you already know. I think I would
never play the Spartans because of fig costs. In the old list you
could get irregular hoplites IIRC, and as MI and "D". Hopefully
something spiffy will be presented in the Imperial Warrior I am
waiting on. In your example, you are basically right, and as Greg
pointed out it is often a flip of the coin to decide what is close
and what is loose order. IMO anything that is scumb or dregs like
persian infantry should always be close order. Such is life...

Basically I'm just trying to say I would run these guys and encourage
you to continue. Bowfire be damned. I have run Syracusan with mixed
success on a couple of occasions, but I always won through better
tactics rather than firepower.

Wanax
Poorly translated from the Iliad, Wanax Andron as Aggamemnon is named
by Achilles means "Lord of men" or "lord of the meadehall and men".
There were two types of kings (rulers) back then. Rex or "warleader"
and Wanax or "clan/tribe/people leader". Rex is temporary and based
upon reputation, but Wanax appoints the Rex.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>"Did you
> give yourself this name?"

The man asked the meaning, I gave the translation. You can kiss the
ring later non-believer.

Wanax Andron

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 8:47:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> The man asked the meaning, I gave the translation. You can
> kiss the
> ring later non-believer.
>
> Wanax Andron>>

Non believer is right - I always find it impossible to believe how goofy some
people can be...lol

Ok, new thread...

[Greg Regets]

Having an opinion, is not opening an old wound Jon, it is just having
an opinion.

If you don't want opinions, perhaps you should limit all posts to
those that agree with you 100% of the time.

Good luck with that ... g ;-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Never one to let an old wound heal (lol), Greg writes...
> In my opinion, too many troops are classed as LHI/LMI, rather than
> close/open order ... and charging out of skirmish should be largely
a
> tactic used by mounted skirmishers.>>
> Chris adds...
>
> or list dependent. But I agree with you completely. I think that
it started
> as a game mechanic that was originally designed to aid the huns,
parthians,
> asiatics etc and was developed as a rule that applied to all
skirmishers. A
> mistake in my opinion that might have been rectified earlier, but
alas so
> much
> water under the bridge that like time will never be recovered.>>
>
> Just because it is a day for me to reminisce about the frenzied
days of
> initial Warrior writing I will throw kerosene on this should-be-out
fire...
>
>
> I gave a great deal of thought and research to this issue. There
was enough
> evidence of what we call LMI/LHI taking advantage of a weakened foe
for me to
> not sweat it as far as history goes.
>
> From a mechanical standpoint, the idea that somehow the ability to
charge out
> of skirmish formation as a foot troop makes them inordinately
powerful is
> incorrect, in my opinion.
>
> We are really talking about missile troops as JLSers can go into
skirmish
> only under very restrictive conditions. We aren't talking about
LMI/LHI charging
> LI out of skirmish as that ability should certainly be there and
them having
> a decided advantage in a skirmish fight with LI is quite
appropriate. We
> aren't talking about Irr LMI/LHI doing this as anything that might
give Irr loose
> order missile troops some kind of useful role should be seen as a
good
> thing...lol
>
> We are talking about dual-armed regular archers here, methinks.
And just who
> are they charging that is making us fret? Not mounted, as the
mounted
> charging them would cancel their charge and disorder them, to say
nothing of the
> waver test. Not irregular foot as they would also cancel the
skirmish charge
> when impetuous. Regular foot, maybe? Concerned that they have to
choose in the
> charge phase with either charging the skirmisher or being hit in a
charge? Or
> the idea that in a regular on regular battle, the missile troop has
the
> flexibility of running or charging, while the other guy must charge
or take it...
> Or maybe that the loose regular archer has this choice but a close
regular
> archer does not and this makes the loose order archer 'even
better'....
> Not sure, since none of these are even remotely a problem in actual
game
> play. I'd be interested to hear a specific case of where this is
an issue...
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 11:27:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

> Having an opinion, is not opening an old wound Jon, it is
> just having
> an opinion.>>

Relax, Greg. Whatever freedom permits you to continue to mail your opinions in
on already decided issues, allows me to kid you about it....

I am quite aware that many folks do not agree with me/FHE. Trying to accomodate
all opinions in the basic rules would produce chaos. What I am not opposed to,
in fact what I would very much like to explore, is how to accomodate opinions in
other innovative ways. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

J