Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

I think it works.

Turn in bound one. result column

Turn in bound two result 3 wide
expand in bound two result 5 wide.

mark mallard




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

[Doug]

>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
>> << How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>
>>
>> I am assuming you mean a steady, regular unit. It contracts twice.
>
>Nope - this would get it to 6-wide, which is illegal.
>
>What it actually does is turn 90 degrees (into column); turn back (ending
>three wide); and then expand. This will take two turns.
>
>However, there's no way to get to be 10 wide other than starting that way,
>because it is not possible to expand twice from 5 wide (that would end at
>9-wide, which is illegal). So this is almost moot. [Personally, I think
>that's an error, and one *sahould* be able to have e.g. a 12-element unit
>12-wide. I've even done it. But the rules are pretty tight here.]
>
>Ewan

But Ewan's contraction solution would have the unit ending the bound
in an illegal formation; 3 wide cannot accomodate 10 elements with
even ranks. So it cannot be done.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/30/2002 08:51:19 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:


> This is exactly my point on having to "game the system" to do something
> that should be part of normal expansion.
>


Is there a reason why you absolutely must have a regular unit of 10E in a
single rank? Why is it that the rules are wrong for making that suboptimal
(our desire and intent) and you are not wrong for wanting such an unwieldy
unit in the first place?


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Doug wrote:
> >> << How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>
> >
> >Nope - this would get it to 6-wide, which is illegal.
> >
> >What it actually does is turn 90 degrees (into column); turn back (ending
> >three wide); and then expand. This will take two turns.
>
> But Ewan's contraction solution would have the unit ending the bound
> in an illegal formation; 3 wide cannot accomodate 10 elements with
> even ranks. So it cannot be done.

Sorry - and good catch. So, when you turn, end up two wide (which is your
choice) and then double-expand.

There are ways to do almost anything.

Ewan

[Ed Forbes]

This is exactly my point on having to "game the system" to do something
that should be part of normal expansion.

Ed

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:36:44 -0400 (EDT) ewan.mcnay@... writes:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Doug wrote:
> > >> << How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>
> > >
> > >Nope - this would get it to 6-wide, which is illegal.
> > >
> > >What it actually does is turn 90 degrees (into column); turn back
> (ending
> > >three wide); and then expand. This will take two turns.
> >
> > But Ewan's contraction solution would have the unit ending the
> bound
> > in an illegal formation; 3 wide cannot accomodate 10 elements with
>
> > even ranks. So it cannot be done.
>
> Sorry - and good catch. So, when you turn, end up two wide (which
> is your
> choice) and then double-expand.
>
> There are ways to do almost anything.
>
> Ewan
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> 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/
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

Ed, your email was interesting, but it did not answer my question, if that
was your intent. I'll ask it again in case you missed it:

> Is there a reason why you absolutely must have a regular unit of 10E
> > in a
> > single rank?

I can rephrase it if you like - unit sizes are chosen one of two ways -
-the historical gamer does so by what makes sense in an historical scenario.
-the tourney gamer does so by what is optimal.

10E regular units fall into neither category.

So why am I worried about this? Why is it aesthetics aren't a perfectly good
reason to have a 6 or 8E unit over 10E since all are 100% arbitrary
groupings?

I sometimes get the feeling that some players feel they have a 'right' to
have any unit from 2-12 elements work on the table in the exact same way as
any other unit of any other size. This will never happen, so I am not sure
what the issue is.


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

[joncleaves]

> <<I think you missed my point.>>


And I think you just don't want to answer my question...<sigh>

>
> Where is the logic in the underlying premise of the rules for allowing
> greater freedom of movement ( movement from / to column and line ) for
> irreg units than for reg units?

There is no such premise in the rules that applies evenly to all troop
training class and unit size combinations. Therefore we have no basis for
discussion because you believe that such a premise exists and I have stated
(repeatedly) that it does not. There will be some regular unit sizes that
cannot contract where an irreg unit of the same size could. We do not intend
to write a separate rule for such regular unit sizes (such as 10x1) because
another rule just to support a totally unnecessary and suboptimal unit size
has been (since we began this whole process) deemed useless.

You think we have made some blanket statement that the rules will all be
written such that any unit size of regulars will automatically be more
maneuverable (mobile, flexible, whatever) that a similar irreg unit when we
have done no such thing.

You really need to latch on to these two things which ARE premises of
Warrior:

-Unit size is mostly arbitrary as ancient bodies of troops did not use the
same concept of 'units' we do today. The optimal sizes available and played
are designed to produce realistic 'effects' and we feel they do.

-We recognize there are some suboptimal unit size-training class
combinations, and we are ok with that and will continue to be.


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

[Ed Forbes]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:30:31 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
>
> Is there a reason why you absolutely must have a regular unit of 10E
> in a
> single rank? Why is it that the rules are wrong for making that
> suboptimal
> (our desire and intent) and you are not wrong for wanting such an
> unwieldy
> unit in the first place?

Jon,

This goes to the heart of the very definition of reg and irreg troops.
The definition of reg and irreg troops used in both Warrior and TOG use
identical language and the same core logic.

Page 8, 2.11 : Reg troops "learn drill as well as weapon use, and obey
orders like 'Left Wheel!' or 'Double Ranks!'.."

Page 8, 2.12 : Irreg troops "can only obey orders such as 'Follow
me!'.."

The clear intent in the rules is that Reg troops are better at maneuver
than Irreg troops.

Your usage of the restrictions that require even ranks for reg troops
that forbid large units of reg troops to expand or contract from column
or line, or forbidding reg's to expand one stand during combat follow up
with a reg unit as small as 2Ex2E, while allowing the same size irreg
unit to do these actions is in direct contradiction of the very
definition of the reg troop types.

If you want to limit the size of the units that can maneuver for some
reason, ok, but reg troops should be able to maneuver better and in lager
size units than do irreg troops, not the other way round as it currently
exists.

You have a logical inconsistency in the rules as they are now written and
interpreted.

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

I think you missed my point.

This issue is about more than just 10E reg units. This issue effects a
wide range of movement / pt cost issues contrasting reg vs irreg troops.


One can of worms is combat follow up. Currently 2 rank reg units are not
allowed to follow up with one stand after combat. I know you said you
were going to look into it for a possible change but this problem follows
directly from the even rank requirement for regs.

Where is the logic in the underlying premise of the rules for allowing
greater freedom of movement ( movement from / to column and line ) for
irreg units than for reg units? All logic says that reg troops should be
in all instances better at maneuver than irreg troops of the same order.

Ed


On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:32:15 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> Ed, your email was interesting, but it did not answer my question, if
> that
> was your intent. I'll ask it again in case you missed it:
>
> > Is there a reason why you absolutely must have a regular unit of
> 10E
> > > in a
> > > single rank?
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

Twelve element Seleucid pike units one deep screening Mongol LC..... did I
see the word history in that same paragraph? lol


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

[joncleaves]

I agree with no. 5.

All the others are based on the concept of units, which are, in almost all
cases, completely arbitrary in size.

We have written the element, unit and command rules to produce the right
historical EFFECT of command control on the ancient/medieval battlefield, not
to make some statement that we know for sure armies organized in X element
blocks. That means some size/training combinations will be suboptimal.

Now, if you had historical evidence of an actual regular body of troops, that
all served the same local ('company') commander, of 9-12 element equivalents
in size (1800-3800 men for close order foot) that spread itself out 4 men
(1E) deep to 'screen', then I might have to relent. Except I know the answer
already.

Let me try it this way: I am not writing a rule to make it easier for 9+ E
regular units to spread out one rank deep. There are many reasons why i am
not, but the simplest one is that there is no need to.


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

[Ewan McNay]

Jon, as it happens I agree with you on this Q.

That's not why I replied. The reason for *that* is that this is an
excellent example of the kind of response that will (I suspect) abrade
without (that I can see) a good reason to be abrasive.

On the question at hand: yes, I've used 12-element units one deep;
seleucid pikemen screening Mongol LC, for instance. I think that Ed has a
fair point that this should probably be possible. I happen to also like
the rules on formation as is, but that doesn't remove the (historical!
me, arguing for history!) sensible p.o.v.

Ewan, playing mediator...

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Ed, your email was interesting, but it did not answer my question, if that
> was your intent. I'll ask it again in case you missed it:
>
> > Is there a reason why you absolutely must have a regular unit of 10E
> > > in a
> > > single rank?
>
> I can rephrase it if you like - unit sizes are chosen one of two ways -
> -the historical gamer does so by what makes sense in an historical scenario.
> -the tourney gamer does so by what is optimal.
>
> 10E regular units fall into neither category.
>
> So why am I worried about this? Why is it aesthetics aren't a perfectly good
> reason to have a 6 or 8E unit over 10E since all are 100% arbitrary
> groupings?
>
> I sometimes get the feeling that some players feel they have a 'right' to
> have any unit from 2-12 elements work on the table in the exact same way as
> any other unit of any other size. This will never happen, so I am not sure
> what the issue is.
>
>
> [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/
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

Being a macedonian/seleucid player - and one who has read fairly widely i
remember an instance where the pikes were strung out on a flank in a thin
line to stop the enemy cavalry.

Maybe someone can help me with the actual battle.

I have done it myself on numerous occasion under other rules.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/31/2002 03:29:35 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:


> Being a macedonian/seleucid player - and one who has read fairly widely i
> remember an instance where the pikes were strung out on a flank in a thin
> line to stop the enemy cavalry.
>

Yes, sure. But in a 'unit' of 3000 men 4 deep or in three 'units' of 1000
men four deep? The issue isn't a thin pike line, it is the nature of a unit
and how we represent it on the table top.


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

[Ed Forbes]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:40:46 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
>
>
> > <<I think you missed my point.>>
>
>
> And I think you just don't want to answer my question...<sigh>
>
> >

Ok Jon, here are specific reasons why I think the rule in question is
over broad.

1) There are troops types, such as 2hct, that only fight 1 rank deep and
gain no rear support. Single rank ( 2 to 5 real ranks ) is how they are
designed to fight.

2) There are times it makes sense, both on the game board and
historically, to spread troops out for a screen or to defend an
obstacle.

3) There are historical justifications for large reg units in many armies
and they should be allowed to expand at least as well as irreg troops

4) A 10E unit of reg A / B/ C troops should be able to perform a maneuver
that a 10E unit of Irr E gutter sweeping can do.

5) reg troops in 2 ranks should be able to expand by one stand after
combat. The expansion after combat is the big problem, though the others
are just as valid.

6) There are both costs and benefits to having large units. Armies have
gone both ways on this issue all through history. Or are you saying that
large reg units were not used or that they could not maneuver to/from
line and column?

There are others, but this is a reasonable sample.

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.