Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

The key to my success with first crusader is the positioning of the
close order foot. It is a basic premis from TOG that close order
hold in place while loose order do the punching; in modern terms this
army is like infantry/armor combined arms where they infantry dig in
and make you fight it out while the armor punches wholes. Just the
nifty thing with this list is the infantry now have organic artillery
(bowfire) and can fight...Lately there has been some discussion about
these large units being targets, or usefull, or a burden, etc. Here
is my take. Yes to all, so they are perfect for use in combined arms
tactics.

Where many people think of combined arms in terms of hit with
infantry then hit with mounted, or hit with Elephants then hit with
infantry, I think of it in terms of channeling into a kill zones. I
use my large close order unit to lure eagar enemy troops into an area
where other units can begin the process of making them uneasy and/or
halting them through threat. The close order become the anvil, if
you will, or the pivot point in all of my tactical planning. I know
many people do this, but it is rarely talked about as part of the CA
tactical doctrine. The close order being able to shoot with some
effectiveness (as well as fight HTH) means that they can contribute
more to the combat than the ordinary close order slugs like
hoplites. Often the types of units that see close order foot as
targets are themselves affraid of impetouos knights or 2HCW LHI, so
they will show respect via the supporting troops for the close
order. Winning this build up is important to winning the local
battle more so than any particular troop type.

This is exactly the way I (and most I think) use the close order
foot. I am not affraid to get them into combat, as I know they will
hold on just enough to let me get something nasty into the fight on
favorable conditions. But their role is not that of combat winner.
Rather their main roles are arrow deflector and screen for the hard
hitting units supporting them.

If you look at the powerpoint slide show I posted to the files
section on my battle with Jamie, you will see this is exactly how I
set up and used my large close order unit. On the left flank
protected by disordering terrain I had a large bow armed unit, then a
unit of Irrg A HC. On the right, I had HC and LHI. Any attempt at
attacking the large HI unit would meet with heavy losses mainly
because the types of units he had that wanted combat where vulnerable
to my HC and bow, namely regular EHC. It was by using the HI as a
pivot upon which to launch my other attacks that I was successful on
my left flank. The shooting and fighting capasity of the second rank
simply made the close order more active in the battle overall and
able to deal out CPF here and there.

Also, I used terrain extensively. My left flank was anchored on what
amounted to impassible terrain to mounted or close order, so I only
needed to worry about keeping loose order off that flank...thus a
unit of HC.

As has been noted here many times, it is the effect of anticipating
and planning for particular combinations that allow any particular
troop type to be effective in there own right.

Wanax

[Larry Essick]

Boyd writes,

> The key to my success with first crusader is the positioning of the
> close order foot. It is a basic premis from TOG that close order
> hold in place while loose order do the punching; in modern terms
this
> army is like infantry/armor combined arms where they infantry dig in
> and make you fight it out while the armor punches wholes. Just the
> nifty thing with this list is the infantry now have organic
artillery
> (bowfire) and can fight...Lately there has been some discussion
about
> these large units being targets, or usefull, or a burden, etc. Here
> is my take. Yes to all, so they are perfect for use in combined
arms
> tactics.

I was always very successful anchoring the right side of my line with
a 12 element block of close formation foot and then fighting from my
left side into the shieldless flanks of my opponents.

With JLS troops it was useful to prep the enemy side of the board by
placing at least 1 large piece of terrain to keep knights at bay.
Otherwise, such a large block proves hard to dislodge and not worth
the points needed to rout it.

Depending on the enemy, deploying 2, 3, or even 4 ranks deep enabled
me to avoid being routed immediately on contact. The only real danger
was HTW in masses, but armies that depend on masses of HTW are
vulnerable to knights and so the big unit just provides rear
support -- you know, waiving the pom-poms from the rear and yelling
"Go team, Go!"

I don't mind using regulars or irregulars. Regulars just wear out the
enemy in pursuit, irregulars die soon enough that my counter-attacking
units catch the enemy unable to mount a fresh charge.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/8/2004 11:42:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Often the types of units that see close order foot as
> targets are themselves affraid of impetouos knights or 2HCW LHI, so
> they will show respect via the supporting troops for the
> close
> order.>>

I believe the above to be untrue, for the most part. The key is the ability to
get off an impetuous LMI/LHI charge around the other guy's mounted. By either
using B's or C's with a standard nearby you can both kill the close order and do
enough to it to mitigate the effects of its supporting troops (or, more usually,
negate his supporting troops with your own).

I'm with Mark, in real competition, hide these guys. Sure, you're flushed with
your Derekcon victory and deserve to croon about for a while, but when tackling
the big boys, units like this are closers and should not be part of any initial
engagements.

Hate to see you have to learn that the hard way, Boyd.,... :)

Jon

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/8/2004 11:42:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > Often the types of units that see close order foot as
> > targets are themselves affraid of impetouos knights or 2HCW LHI,
so
> > they will show respect via the supporting troops for the
> > close
> > order.>>
>
> I believe the above to be untrue, for the most part. The key is
the ability to get off an impetuous LMI/LHI charge around the other
guy's mounted. By either using B's or C's with a standard nearby you
can both kill the close order and do enough to it to mitigate the
effects of its supporting troops (or, more usually, negate his
supporting troops with your own).

Jon, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I don't say I sit
and wait on the enemy to impact the close order. I say that the
close order draws you in, then I deal with you with _either_my loose
order foot (say you're elephants) or with my kniggits (if you are
mounted). I'm not sure why I'd let you hit the close order. The joy
of the close order is that they get to shoot at you the whole time,
and can contribute if HTH is necessary.

I am also saying that anything that might hit them will not be enough
to rout them on contact (of course barring all super heavy and odd
Irreg A up rolls). Even El will suffer facing the shooting to enough
extent that they cannot rout them on contact.

> I'm with Mark, in real competition, hide these guys. Sure, you're
flushed with your Derekcon victory and deserve to croon about for a
while, but when tackling the big boys, units like this are closers
and should not be part of any initial engagements.


first, Jon. I've been around for awhile. I've won every Derekcon
I've attended, not just this one. And I've won some 6 tournaments
before switching from 7.5 to DBM in 1991.

Second, as per your directive, I participate on this list mainly in
the spirit of "help the new guys". In that spirit, I ask many
questions as if I don't know the answer, and let the coversation roll
amongst the experts. Why? Because most of the "big boys" are tight
lipped about any tactical knowledge. If I didn't ask exactly the
right question, then no one would be forthcoming on this list the way
it is currently set up. The threads I've started in that vien have
been some of the most interesting insites into peoples gaming mind
thus far on this list, even if I do say so myself.

Third, since returning from active duty, I have promoted Warrior
religiously through email, postings on other lists, postings on this
list, and in articles for Spearpoint. I do not do this out of any
loyalty for you or Scott, but I do it because you've been consistent
in your treatment of the rules. I want to see Warrior succeed as
much as you, and I don't get a damned dime for it. Indeed, I
wouldn't except a dime for it, as I don't do things for money.

Next, I'm not a slug patzer. I've never finished a 7th tournament or
Warrior tournament out of the top 1/4. I have always been a
contender since abandoning Alex Imp in 15mm (sheildless cav...yuck).
I do know something about playing this game. I realize that you and
a few others who have not had the pleasure of playing me in
tournament play, and so may prefer to downplay anything I say based
upon your experience. Sorry you can't see this. Never, and I do
mean never, assume anything is as it appears with me. On or off the
table.

For calmness sake, I would suggest that unless you've faced me, don't
judge my ability. I've played most of the "big boys" in high
pressure tournament play. Some may prefer to downplay my local
competitors, but I say that is a disservice to them not me. I seem
to recall my main competitor has won more championships than anyone
else. I would say by that count alone I learn from a master. Funny
thing is most of my other competitors also learned from Derek.

I ought to be thanked for trying to show that even marginal armies
are worth playing. I'd say, in fact, that anyone with the guts to
bring a fun army rather than a "killer" army should be applauded for
having the balls to at least try.

>
> Hate to see you have to learn that the hard way, Boyd.,... :)

Bring it on. Hate to have to come out like this and be serious, but
I will not be talked down to. You, Jon, do not tolerate much
ribbing, but certainly this constitutes nothing less here. I am more
than willing to smoke you on the tournament table with any army you
want to bring. Hell, you can make up your own and have SHK, SHC, EHI
and El. I would still give you more game than half the "big boys"
know how to.

Thank you, Good day
Wanax

>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

First Boyd, to respond to most of your email, I can only say 'huh'? I wasn't
attacking you in any way, so i am not sure what all this defensiveness is about.

I should know better than to get into these tactical 'kibbutzes' anyway. They
often degenerate into a 'oh yeah, well then *I'll* do *this*' discussion, which
is where we are headed...lol

I said what i said about that particular close order unit because i do feel
strongly that you are painting it as having capabilities that only a newer
player would play into. I am offering a different view because I would teach,
and I think Mark would agree with me for one, an entirely different set of
characteristics for it to my recruits.


> I say that the
> close order draws you in, then I deal with you with _either_my loose
> order foot (say you're elephants) or with my kniggits (if you are
> mounted). I'm not sure why I'd let you hit the close order. >>

Well, that's fair. They certainly aren't 'drawing me in' so i would expect you
not to simply let me hit them, I'd think you'd try and make me work for it. As
far as me specifically, my mounted is SHK, unafraid of Irr A HC and my foot is
LMI HTW JLS, which is also unafraid of Irr A HC and able to break close order on
contact. So, I guess I'd like to hear what you'd do with this foot unit around
well supported SHK that your HC can't keep at bay.


<< The joy
> of the close order is that they get to shoot at you the
> whole time,>>

That close order unit does not shoot hard enough to matter, and the bigger you
make it the easier it is to split its fire.

I don't really care how many Derekcons anyone has won, Boyd, ...lol I think you
are wishing away a lot of things the other guy can do about that unit and
attributing things to it that it really can't do if the other guys is
experienced.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Please forgive me, but I feel the need to take my first ever shot at
being the voice of reason. :-)

Jon is correct in that tactical discussions are difficult to have on
these boards. So much is dependent on what a player does with the
forces at hand.

I'm sure many have seen Boyd's hammer and anvil thought work to great
effect against very good players. I'm sure many have seen players
throw something vulnerable out there where the enemy could
concentrate on it, then contract back to one or two elements wide,
making it all but impossible for the enemy to get even a single CPF.
I'm sure many players have seen the offering of a unit to occupy
something that is otherwise a serious thorn in the side, all the
while, working over the rest of the army.

Then again, we have probably all seen what Jon is describing, where a
unit is deployed, and basically acts as no more than a speed bump for
the enemy ... or Mark's thought that a unit like this is a good place
to kick off a larger general attack.

I think all parties are correct, from their own point of view.

Thanks ... Greg



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> First Boyd, to respond to most of your email, I can only
say 'huh'? I wasn't attacking you in any way, so i am not sure what
all this defensiveness is about.
>
> I should know better than to get into these tactical 'kibbutzes'
anyway. They often degenerate into a 'oh yeah, well then *I'll* do
*this*' discussion, which is where we are headed...lol
>
> I said what i said about that particular close order unit because i
do feel strongly that you are painting it as having capabilities that
only a newer player would play into. I am offering a different view
because I would teach, and I think Mark would agree with me for one,
an entirely different set of characteristics for it to my recruits.
>
>
> > I say that the
> > close order draws you in, then I deal with you with _either_my
loose
> > order foot (say you're elephants) or with my kniggits (if you are
> > mounted). I'm not sure why I'd let you hit the close order. >>
>
> Well, that's fair. They certainly aren't 'drawing me in' so i
would expect you not to simply let me hit them, I'd think you'd try
and make me work for it. As far as me specifically, my mounted is
SHK, unafraid of Irr A HC and my foot is LMI HTW JLS, which is also
unafraid of Irr A HC and able to break close order on contact. So, I
guess I'd like to hear what you'd do with this foot unit around well
supported SHK that your HC can't keep at bay.
>
>
> << The joy
> > of the close order is that they get to shoot at you the
> > whole time,>>
>
> That close order unit does not shoot hard enough to matter, and the
bigger you make it the easier it is to split its fire.
>
> I don't really care how many Derekcons anyone has won,
Boyd, ...lol I think you are wishing away a lot of things the other
guy can do about that unit and attributing things to it that it
really can't do if the other guys is experienced.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/8/2004 2:00:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

> I think all parties are correct, from their own point of
> view.
>
> Thanks ... Greg>>

Greg Regets channelling Barney. Not something you see every day...lol

[Greg Regets]

I just know you don't mean to be pedantic, even is you sound that way
about 100% of the time. ;-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/8/2004 2:00:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> > I think all parties are correct, from their own point of
> > view.
> >
> > Thanks ... Greg>>
>
> Greg Regets channelling Barney. Not something you see every
day...lol

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> First Boyd, to respond to most of your email, I can only
say 'huh'? I wasn't attacking you in any way, so i am not sure what
all this defensiveness is about.

If I in effect said to you Jon "that's ok, your little scooter is
nice, but it can't compete in the real scooters" you'd be offended.
To look at First Crusader through the eyes of a recognized tournament
winning army in the hands of a top contender is unfair. To say Mark
Stone with Hohenstaufen Sicilian would kick it's ass, is like saying
a lion can kill wolf. This thread began because a guy asked about
how to run First Crusader. He didn't ask "what army is the best for
tournament play". So, no where have I devolved to say so. I think
it a disservice to do so in fact, as that flies in the face of what
you've said we should be doing here....encourage players.

> I said what i said about that particular close order unit because i
do feel strongly that you are painting it as having capabilities that
only a newer player would play into. I am offering a different view
because I would teach, and I think Mark would agree with me for one,
an entirely different set of characteristics for it to my recruits.

Just a question, Jon. Do you think I'd set up in any way that would
allow your K to ever get near my close order foot?

I'm trying to draw a picture, begun my Mark, that says these close
order foot are somewhat better since they can shoot as well as
fight. Will they charge in and win a game? No one has said that yet.

> > I say that the
> > close order draws you in, then I deal with you with _either_my
loose
> > order foot (say you're elephants) or with my kniggits (if you are
> > mounted). I'm not sure why I'd let you hit the close order. >>
>
> Well, that's fair. They certainly aren't 'drawing me in' so i
would expect you not to simply let me hit them, I'd think you'd try
and make me work for it. As far as me specifically, my mounted is
SHK, unafraid of Irr A HC and my foot is LMI HTW JLS, which is also
unafraid of Irr A HC and able to break close order on contact. So, I
guess I'd like to hear what you'd do with this foot unit around well
supported SHK that your HC can't keep at bay.

SHK draw LI always. If I faced an army such as above, I certainly
would make you fight across terrain. Without entering the "you do
this/I do that" type of dicussion, you must know that the size of
your army at 1200 pts would be so small as to give up the initiative
somewhere. That is how these trade offs in quality work. Where you
go, I do not go. Where you attack, I do not reenforce. If faced
with any insurmountable problem, as Sun Tzu said "do not attempt to
surmount it". With a high cost army, you will be small somewhere.
That somewhere is where I will be 3 to 1.


> << The joy
> > of the close order is that they get to shoot at you the
> > whole time,>>
>
> That close order unit does not shoot hard enough to matter, and the
bigger you make it the easier it is to split its fire.

And the more units you must commit to do so. I would never reenforce
any area that had a 3 to 1 advantage, for this means you will be weak
in other areas. Warrior, like DBM, allows both parties to attack in
different areas. The trick, as you already know, it to get the enemy
to attack your strength and you his weakness; the other trick, as I
have attempted to point out, is to allow him a sense of your weakness
as a lure. the HI are a lure to such units where terrain and others
are not. And while IrrgA HC may not be a threat to SHK frontally,
they can certainly rout them from the flank with an uproll. I just
don't understand how anyone can discount any troop type in such a
combined arms environment with talk of matchups.

>
> I don't really care how many Derekcons anyone has won,
Boyd, ...lol I think you are wishing away a lot of things the other
guy can do about that unit and attributing things to it that it
really can't do if the other guys is experienced.

I know you don't, and this is sad. The missed point is that I'm not
ignorant, I do care, and such people should be fostered not
discounted out of hand.

Wishing away things. Hmm. A guy asked about running First Crusader,
and I've given him much advice that is useful in making such an army
work. Has anything about the army that I've said been a lie? At
what point did I devolve into matchups favorable or otherwise? At
what point did I indicate this army would stand up to super heavy
anything in a stand up straight fight in the open? If the other guy
being experienced means running armies without vulnerabilities, then
I don't think he exists. If the other guy being experienced means he
is less likely to give up an area without a fight or be easy to trap,
then this is what I've said all along. I agreed with everything Mark
said and added to it, yet you batter my words with Mark as if he were
of a contrary opinion.

If given the option to have a 12E unit of HI J/sh, MI B/J or a unit
of 12E HI/MI J/sh, I think you would have to be a fool not to take
the bow in the second rank. That is as blunt and aggressive as I can
be. I've been trying to say this in a nice way, but only to be
battered for mincing words. Fine, I'll be blunt from now on.

> Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/8/2004 2:46:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

> I just know you don't mean to be pedantic, even is you
> sound that way
> about 100% of the time. >>

Just to prove Boyd wrong, I accept your jibe with all gentlemenliness...

;)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/8/2004 2:54:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Just a question, Jon. Do you think I'd set up in any way that would
> allow your K to ever get near my close order foot?>>

Do you think I'd need you too? And if you set them up so far away that they are
completely away from danger then we are completly in agreement on where these
troops should be in a real fight.

See what I mean about these nonspecific tactical discussions? lol
I think we'd all be better served with actual examples, with unit positions and
specific enemies.

> I'm trying to draw a picture, begun my Mark, that says these close
> order foot are somewhat better since they can shoot as well as
> fight. Will they charge in and win a game? No one has said that yet.>>

Mark was trying to make the best of a bad situation. I totally agree that they
are better than HI JLS because they also have B. I don't agree they should be
anywhere near the front line at the time of the initial engagement.
At most, they should be at 240p spolitiing enemy fire, typically however they
should be well out of it in really with lost of terrain to help them.

> If given the option to have a 12E unit of HI J/sh, MI B/J or a unit
> of 12E HI/MI J/sh, I think you would have to be a fool not to take
> the bow in the second rank. >>

Given those two choices, I agree, I would take the latter. But I'd be using the
B in the second rank to split the other guy's missile fire (directly in front
and capable of shooting) from a distance of 240p so this unit was no where near
where someone could charge it. I certainly wouln't use it as a main shooter
because what it puts out is paltry.

<< I've been trying to say this in a nice way, but only to be
> battered for mincing words. >>

I battered no one. If you feel battered, I am sorry, but I think it might be
because you are reading too much into what I said.

<< Fine, I'll be blunt from now
> on.>>

And before you were what, exactly? lol Blunt on, my friend!

J