Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< i was just wondering how or if warrior
will change the way elephants and chariots fight.>>

No change, except for cleaning up the 'more figures to the rear' problem.

<< It was always very difficult to show people how they worked under 7th.>>

What we are doing is:
1. Putting in an example of each right in the text.
2. Summarizing all elephant and chariot rules in a single rules section (the
infamous rule 13).

Jon

G'dday all,
With all this talk of elephants, i was just wondering how or if warrior
will
change the way elephants and chariots fight. It was always very difficult to
show people how they worked under 7th. I seem to remember that even
Phil took several go at getting it right for the rule book.
Chris Cameron.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
To: <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:52 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Digest Number 17


------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - You have to check this link out, it's pretty funny.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5994/2/_/_/_/962110347/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: John Francis Meunier <jmeunier@...>
2. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: Ewan Mcnay <ewan@...>
3. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: "Philip Gardocki" <phgamer@...>
4. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
5. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
6. Re: Elephants and Army Popularity
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
7. Re: Recall Moves & Evade Move
From: Donald Coon <jendon@...>
8. Wedges
From: "Philip Gardocki" <phgamer@...>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:04:12 -0500 (EST)
From: John Francis Meunier <jmeunier@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity



On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Ewan Mcnay wrote:

> Hi Paul (and all)
>
> There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
> which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
> popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
> rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
> chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
> contact...
>
> ...when this was changed, the Indians went away.

Buddy of mine built an Indian army under early 7th. It was certainly the
chariots that were the charm.

Had one of those buggers contacted to front and flank by Spartan hoplites
and couldn't kill the damn thing. Nasty, nasty.

Didn't Burmese elephants get the same silly advantage for a while?

John Meunier



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ewan Mcnay <ewan@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, John Francis Meunier wrote:
> Didn't Burmese elephants get the same silly advantage for a while?

Yes; and they were actually much, much nastier because they still fight
when they didn't advance last turn, unlike chariot horses.

Burmese elephants, though, suffer from (i) being part of a Burmese army
, and (ii) being *so* damn expensive. The cost is appropriate, but it
means that if you buy the 9 (?) that you're allowed, there's too little
else in the army. And even if the crew fight all around (which they still
do, incidentally, one of the idiocies that Warrior will doubtless clear up
is the fact that currently, more chariot/elephant crew can fight you if
you charge their rear than if you you charge their front), the elephants
don't .

A common approach to Burmese, at least in the UK, was to have two huge
elephants units and essentially hide the rest of the army behind them.
This works well. I saw this taken to its logical extreme by a Burmese who
took the 'HYW' approach, and set up in a corner on wait orders, with a
frontage of 9 (or whatever) elephants the only thing available to be
fought. Now, that's OK if you happen to have an army of LMI archers, but
otherwise...

[well, ok, the solution of course is to hit one end of an elephant unit
with a huge unit in column, pinning it and preventing the rest of the
uinit from shooting, then hit the rest of the unit. But it's still scary]

Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:24:38 -0400
From: "Philip Gardocki" <phgamer@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity

Also, in early 7th, elephants caused waver checks on Cav.
and all crew shot 2-1, not just one figure.

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay <ewan@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Monday, June 26, 2000 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants and Army Popularity


>Hi Paul (and all)
>
> There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
>which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
>popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
>rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
>chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
>contact...
>
>...when this was changed, the Indians went away .
>
>Ewan
>
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, fra paolo wrote:
>
>> I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
>> evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
>> However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
>> figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
>> Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearsons analysis
>> published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
>> Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
>> Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants werent used.
>> I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
>> early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
>> I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
>> reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
>> different wargaming milieus.
>> This does raise some potential matters of cultural differences that
>> FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
>> potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
>> But then again, maybe not.
>> We just dont have a sufficient database to establish an informed
>> opinion, and thats my real concern.
>>
>> Paul Szuscikiewicz
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
>> 1. Fill in the brief application
>> 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
>> 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
>> http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/2/_/_/_/961975714/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
>(203) 432-7005
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/2/_/_/_/962029392/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:44:57 -0700
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity



Ewan Mcnay wrote:

> Hi Paul (and all)
>
> There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
> which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
> popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
> rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
> chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
> contact...

That would make sense. I do remember there was a fashion for chariot armies
for a time. I associate it with the years after the first amendment sheet
(mid-to-late 1980s?), however, and not with the early 1990s.
The other aspect to all this is that of table size. In Doubles
competitions, with a lot of figures on a standard sized table, the elephants
are harder to avoid if one is using a cavalry army.
I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, BTW, even though no-one agrees
with me. I can't say the same about all my experiences of e-lists.

Paul Szuscikiewicz



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:10 -0700
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity



JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Actually, Paul, we have hundreds of games where 30-point-elephant-based
> armies are not dominating their competition.
> If elephant armies were blowing away their opponents across all army
types,
> I'd be into this issue like Sherlock Holmes. I think we have a
'sufficient
> database' and it has not established a problem.

While FHE might have a sufficient database, it is not a "public" database in
the
way that sports statistics are kept. Bill James and the sabermetricians of
baseball devised all kinds of new ways of using baseball statistics to make
comparisons. These methods have not been universally greeted with acclaim.
But the
point is that the information to construct their theories was publically
available. Nothing like that exists for ancients. The public picture is a
fragmentary one. I'm not trying to blame people or accuse people of being
secretive: Things have just happened like this because wargaming is a hobby
of
amateurs.

Paul Szuscikiewicz




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:49:36 -0700
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
Subject: Re: Elephants and Army Popularity



Philip Gardocki wrote:

> I think you will find that the British tournaments of the early 90's were
> mostly rev 6 based. The British were very late in accepting Rev 7, many
> jumped to DBM without ever owning a copy.
>

This was not my experience. All my acquaintances embraced 7th with the
enthusiasm of a convert as soon as it came out. 6th was popular in the West
Country, partly through the efforts of Paul Bailey and Keep Wargaming in
Devizes, Wiltshire, to keep it in print and to keep running tournaments.
(One of those chicken-and-egg supply-and-demand situations, I've always
thought.) However, in London and its environs, including such fabled clubs
of international renown as Pinner and Reigate, 7th was widely accepted.
(And, whisper if one dares, there are those who don't like DBM and prefer
7th, even though they play and win DBM competitions.)

Paul Szuscikiewicz



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:19:33 -0500
From: Donald Coon <jendon@...>
Subject: Re: Recall Moves & Evade Move

> Harlan D. Garrett wrote:
>
> In the rules (7th & Warrior) state that is a body that is conducting a
> recall move must move to its direct rear. In the case of an evade
> move the unit move move to its rear or directly away from the charge.
> However, in some cases it may be impossible or impractical to respond
> in this method. We allow common sense to dictate these moves. Such
> as, HC charge LC and the LC respond by evade, however, if it move
> directly to its rear or away from the charge it must move
> into woods. We allowed the LC to move at a slight angle to avoid the
> wood, we believe this common sense move to be appropriate. What does
> everyone do in this situation.
>
> Harlan D. Garrett

Not just what does everyone do, but what will the rules say you can do.
Joe suggested a prioritized list like:
1. must move straight away from charge
2. must move straight back
3. may wheel 45 degrees to avoid enemy body
4. may wheel 45 degrees to avoid difficult terrain.

Something like that. What we do not want to see is a controlled evade
with benificial wheels or formation changes at the whim of the
controller.

Don


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:57:17 -0400
From: "Philip Gardocki" <phgamer@...>
Subject: Wedges

I have an objection to special rules to compensate troops that
formally were able to fight in wedge continuing to fight a rank and a half
with weapons that would not normally be able to. This seems to be done with
the rational that "Those behind contributed by their momentum or inertia,
missiles, or relief of tired or wounded men." While this is a nice concept,
the reality of the game is that the number ranks is totally dependent on
weapon types. If Slav Axemen can fight a rank and a half with an ax, then
why not Varangian Guardsmen? They were trained to fight in ordered ranks,
and presumably could relieve tired and wounded men. (the only debate was
whether or not they used a two handed ax in battle.)
I think this is in compensation for all the "wedgeable" armies out
there, but if you are going to eliminate the formation, why muddy the rules
with the exception coding? Frankly, I thought the wedge was a silly
formation, because if the geometry of the thing was studied, and assuming
the wedge "penetrated" instead of "squashed" against the enemy formation,
than both sides would have more men fighting, so at best, it raised the
tempo of the battle, but not the odds. I would agree that if the wedge
"penetrated", that the penetrated formation would be more prone to breaking
down, possibly effecting disorder, waver check, or a cause of unease.
I see Warrior(R) heading down a slippery slope where every one will
have a rank and half. At the moment, the exceptions left are, (pause,
shuffle, shuffle) Elephants and Chariots without runners, JLS armed Cavalry,
exclusively Bow, LB, CB, 2HCT not also armed with JLS. At this point, why
not drop the 1.5 ranks except for pike and make the counting simpler?
There is a collateral effect when you raise the weapon effectiveness
of many troop types. You raise the tempo of the battle. You will see
individual battles being resolved in a shorter period of time. There will
be less of the push and shove that was the nature of two battlelines
clashing. The Rev 7 combat table is fairly bloody as is, giving Lance and
2HCW 50% more fire power will skew the battles to be shorter and more
decisive.

Philip (Lance is my life) Gardocki



[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/23/2005 20:50:10 Central Standard Time,
vfsenvironmental@... writes:

My apologies if I opened a festering wound regarding shooting and elephants.
I'm just trying to understand the rule better, and I appreciate your
responses.>>

No apologies necessary, Fred. I don't mind answering an 'old' question -
theoretically one can go back and look through the archive, but not always
practical. I just wanted to make clear to others that I was answering your
question and not responding to continued calls for change or other pet rocks.

My pleasure to help.

Jon






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

Jon:

My apologies if I opened a festering wound regarding shooting and elephants.
I'm just trying to understand the rule better, and I appreciate your
responses. I didn't realize this was a history of disgruntlement regarding
elephants and missile fire as noted by yourself and Kelly.

I'm fine with the answer you provided - it is not necessary to provide the
background details regarding design theory, and I will not kibitz. I just
desire to properly understand and implement the rule accurately, especially
since OW has such fine Indian armies, with many options regarding troop
types and weapons over the various periods.

I'm looking forward to trying out fire bombing elephants - maybe a gimmick,
but will certainly be interesting and fun. As others have stated in a
related thread, not certain how you would hide such devices form the enemy.

Fred Stratton

[joncleaves]

Question 1 - enemy troops, yes. Friendly troops, no.

Question 2 - If they have bow and in a second rank, yes, otherwise, no.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Becker <JonBecker@...>
To: WarriorRules <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:11:18 -0600
Subject: [WarriorRules] Elephants


Hello!

Can elephants shoot over other troops if on the same height?

Can elephants shoot from a rear rank over joined detachments?




Yahoo! Groups Links






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