Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com:

> This I strongly agree with, and am grateful for. Of the two that Jon
> noted, one (that the CinC does not have to be given a command) I knew
> about, but would submit that it's in the same league as shieldless
> Thorakitoi: possible in theory but I've never seen it done and would
> think it silly.

I actually had this discussion with Jon at Cold Wars to make sure I understood
the rule. Here's why it's not silly:

Let's take a simple case, an army with a C-in-C and one subgeneral. Suppose,
counting generals' bodies, that there are 12 bodies in the command. Now let's
look at three different ways of organizing commands:

A. Two commands of 6 bodies each.

B. The C-in-C's command of 5 bodies, the subgeneral's command of 7 bodies.

C. One command of 11 bodies, and the C-in-C not in a command.

Now let's look at a couple of factors for each of these configurations: first,
who can prompt/rally which bodies; second, how many bodies broken/shaken does it
take to put a command into retirement? Keep in mind -- and this is the key point
-- that _regardless_ of which configuration is used, _every_ body is in the
C-in-C's line of command.

A: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can only prompt/rally
three bodies. Either command will go to retirement upon losing three bodies.

B: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can only prompt/rally four
bodies. The C-in-C's command will go into retirement upon losing three bodies,
while the subgeneral's command will go into retirement upon losing four bodies.

Clearly B is a superior configuration to A. This is why we all set up our
commands to have an odd number of units in them. Now look at the remaining
option.

C: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can prompt/rally anyone
except the C-in-C. No command will go in retirement unless six bodies other than
the C-in-C's are lost.

Why is this not the best option? I have racked my brains and I cannot think of
any negatives to using C over B. You get more flexibility with prompting and
rallying, and you get an army that's harder to break. Casualties tend to mount
at a main point of attack on the battlefield, and with several smaller commands
the odds are that one command is taking the brunt of this and will go into
retirement. With configuration C, bodies far from the point of conflict diminish
the impact of losses.

So, Ewan, I submit that while this approach may not be for everyone, it is far
from silly.


Just adding to the diversity of opinions,
Mark Stone

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> Why is this not the best option? I have racked my brains and I
cannot think of
> any negatives to using C over B. You get more flexibility with
prompting and
> rallying, and you get an army that's harder to break. Casualties
tend to mount
> at a main point of attack on the battlefield, and with several
smaller commands
> the odds are that one command is taking the brunt of this and will
go into
> retirement. With configuration C, bodies far from the point of
conflict diminish
> the impact of losses.
>

I don't bring any credentials to this, but one thing that seems
important is that in a version with one command you can only give one
order. So the whole army will have the same order. This may not be
bad, but it is a difference between your examples that I don't think
you address.

John Meunier

[Todd Kaeser]

Mark, Ewan, etc..

If I'm not mistaken if a CinC is alone he can only
prompt units out of his command to charge, retire,
march, etc if the CinC has intercepted said unit. If
my reading is correct (I may be wrong he folks) than
having a 2 general army w/ the CinC alone would be
difficult at best to prompt units. If one has 3 or
more generals than I agree w/ Ewan to have the CinC
alone for rally purposes.

Todd




--- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> Quoting WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com:
>
> > This I strongly agree with, and am grateful for.
> Of the two that Jon
> > noted, one (that the CinC does not have to be
> given a command) I knew
> > about, but would submit that it's in the same
> league as shieldless
> > Thorakitoi: possible in theory but I've never seen
> it done and would
> > think it silly.
>
> I actually had this discussion with Jon at Cold Wars
> to make sure I understood
> the rule. Here's why it's not silly:
>
> Let's take a simple case, an army with a C-in-C and
> one subgeneral. Suppose,
> counting generals' bodies, that there are 12 bodies
> in the command. Now let's
> look at three different ways of organizing commands:
>
> A. Two commands of 6 bodies each.
>
> B. The C-in-C's command of 5 bodies, the
> subgeneral's command of 7 bodies.
>
> C. One command of 11 bodies, and the C-in-C not in a
> command.
>
> Now let's look at a couple of factors for each of
> these configurations: first,
> who can prompt/rally which bodies; second, how many
> bodies broken/shaken does it
> take to put a command into retirement? Keep in mind
> -- and this is the key point
> -- that _regardless_ of which configuration is used,
> _every_ body is in the
> C-in-C's line of command.
>
> A: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The
> subgeneral can only prompt/rally
> three bodies. Either command will go to retirement
> upon losing three bodies.
>
> B: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The
> subgeneral can only prompt/rally four
> bodies. The C-in-C's command will go into retirement
> upon losing three bodies,
> while the subgeneral's command will go into
> retirement upon losing four bodies.
>
> Clearly B is a superior configuration to A. This is
> why we all set up our
> commands to have an odd number of units in them. Now
> look at the remaining option.
>
> C: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The
> subgeneral can prompt/rally anyone
> except the C-in-C. No command will go in retirement
> unless six bodies other than
> the C-in-C's are lost.
>
> Why is this not the best option? I have racked my
> brains and I cannot think of
> any negatives to using C over B. You get more
> flexibility with prompting and
> rallying, and you get an army that's harder to
> break. Casualties tend to mount
> at a main point of attack on the battlefield, and
> with several smaller commands
> the odds are that one command is taking the brunt of
> this and will go into
> retirement. With configuration C, bodies far from
> the point of conflict diminish
> the impact of losses.
>
> So, Ewan, I submit that while this approach may not
> be for everyone, it is far
> from silly.
>
>
> Just adding to the diversity of opinions,
> Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/23/2002 18:48:44 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> You must note that a subgeneral can rally troops not in his own command.
> This somewhat dilutes your analysis.
>

You mean recover, of course. And it isn't true for allied commands.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/23/2002 20:56:34 Central Daylight Time,
scribblerjohn@... writes:

> Okay, maybe this isn't a big deal. Does flexibility in giving orders
> ever make a difference in people's game playing? I don't remember any
> mention of people thinking about orders in the battle reports I've
> read. Do they impact the game much?
>

I think they impact heavily. Quite often a player does not take them
seriously - just assigning attack or probe and then trying to do any old
thing with his units that he wants, without paying attention to what/when
must be prompted, who must advance, how countering and retiring are often
limited by orders and when you can add/deduct variable move distance. Once
caught blowing off an order's limits, players are often stuck getting thier
army's act back together instead of fighting the enemy. I keep the
initiative quite often just by knowing my orders and ensuring both of us are
in compliance.


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

[Don Coon]

You must note that a subgeneral can rally troops not in his own command.
This somewhat dilutes your analysis.

Don

> Let's take a simple case, an army with a C-in-C and one subgeneral.
Suppose,
> counting generals' bodies, that there are 12 bodies in the command. Now
let's
> look at three different ways of organizing commands:
>
> A. Two commands of 6 bodies each.
>
> B. The C-in-C's command of 5 bodies, the subgeneral's command of 7 bodies.
>
> C. One command of 11 bodies, and the C-in-C not in a command.
>
> Now let's look at a couple of factors for each of these configurations:
first,
> who can prompt/rally which bodies; second, how many bodies broken/shaken
does it
> take to put a command into retirement? Keep in mind -- and this is the key
point
> -- that _regardless_ of which configuration is used, _every_ body is in
the
> C-in-C's line of command.
>
> A: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can only
prompt/rally
> three bodies. Either command will go to retirement upon losing three
bodies.
>
> B: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can only
prompt/rally four
> bodies. The C-in-C's command will go into retirement upon losing three
bodies,
> while the subgeneral's command will go into retirement upon losing four
bodies.
>
> Clearly B is a superior configuration to A. This is why we all set up our
> commands to have an odd number of units in them. Now look at the remaining
option.
>
> C: The C-in-C can prompt/rally anyone. The subgeneral can prompt/rally
anyone
> except the C-in-C. No command will go in retirement unless six bodies
other than
> the C-in-C's are lost.

[Don Coon]

Yeah recover. Rally really has no bearing when it comes to generals. Mea
Culpa.

Don
>
> > You must note that a subgeneral can rally troops not in his own command.
> > This somewhat dilutes your analysis.
> >
>
> You mean recover, of course. And it isn't true for allied commands.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "scribblerm" <scribblerjohn@a...> wrote:
>
> I don't bring any credentials to this, but one thing that seems
> important is that in a version with one command you can only give
one
> order. So the whole army will have the same order. This may not be
> bad, but it is a difference between your examples that I don't
think
> you address.
>
> John Meunier


Okay, maybe this isn't a big deal. Does flexibility in giving orders
ever make a difference in people's game playing? I don't remember any
mention of people thinking about orders in the battle reports I've
read. Do they impact the game much?

John

[Greg Regets]

Having very few generals and obeying orders has become more difficult with the
advent of the new rules as to who qualifies as an advance. It used to be that
40p or one march segment was good enough, now it is 40p or all available march
segments towards the enemy (I wish FHE would have better defined that term),
which to a point forces players to pin at 240p when marching.

It is much easier to lay a trap for the player without enough generals. Probably
more so in 15mm than in 25mm.

G

----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Digest Number 716


In a message dated 10/23/2002 20:56:34 Central Daylight Time,
scribblerjohn@... writes:

> Okay, maybe this isn't a big deal. Does flexibility in giving orders
> ever make a difference in people's game playing? I don't remember any
> mention of people thinking about orders in the battle reports I've
> read. Do they impact the game much?
>

I think they impact heavily. Quite often a player does not take them
seriously - just assigning attack or probe and then trying to do any old
thing with his units that he wants, without paying attention to what/when
must be prompted, who must advance, how countering and retiring are often
limited by orders and when you can add/deduct variable move distance. Once
caught blowing off an order's limits, players are often stuck getting thier
army's act back together instead of fighting the enemy. I keep the
initiative quite often just by knowing my orders and ensuring both of us are
in compliance.


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


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]