Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<<I think that Warrior needs to look at the entire armor relationship for
the feudal period. >>

<<Also on a separate issue, I also believe that the LB factor is much too
prevalent in Warrior. >>

I'll look at this for an x-rule or optional rule when the rulebook is done
and I turn to all the various extras we want to do for the game.

Jon



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/16/2005 15:48:18 Central Standard Time,
ncioran@... writes:

Is this really a rulebook issue? I'd assume LEHI is going to be
incorporated into the new rulebook now that its been introduced for
the Samurai. >>
Uh, not really. LEHI is the same line as EHI on the chart, otherwise its
just loose foot. No rules needed.



After that doesn't this really become an issue of revisiting the
army lists and adding shields/armour levels where the armour has not
been relatively accurately represented compared to other armies?>>
Ah, one would have to agree Warrior has it wrong to do that, and I don't
agree. But I do agree to work on some optional and experimental rules after
the
rulebook is at the printer.




Similarly, if someone has concerns about the longbow's
representation in a list, isn't that a list question?>>
Again, LB is the way it will be in the lists. We may approve an optional or
experimental rule on it, but no change is planned.



That said, is a revised set of lists next on the agenda after the
rulebook?>>
Down the road (way down the road) we will do Warrior Armies, which is all
the lists in one 8.5x11 product. Bewteen now and then we may revisit a handful
of lists, particularly in Biblical. But no wholesale revisit is planned.
The list books you have now will be the ones in play for quite some time and
when Warrior Armies comes out, in 90% of cases, only errata will be
incorporated, nothing 'new'. And certainly no changes that make a list 'worse'
in any
case.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/16/2005 16:30:38 Central Standard Time,
ncioran@... writes:

> After that doesn't this really become an issue of revisiting the
> army lists and adding shields/armour levels where the armour has
> not been relatively accurately represented compared to other armies?

Jon wrote:
> Ah, one would have to agree Warrior has it wrong to do that, and I
> don't agree.

Your answer makes me wonder if I'm missing some fundamental principle
here.

Is this because there's some behind the scenes "scaling" of technology
going on, so the Swiss infantry's armour, while far superior to the
mail shirt of their predecessors, only counts as HI because its facing
better quality weapons?>>

Your question was about all lists and so was my answer. We are giving the
Swiss a major going over due to the questions on the group recently and I am
not sure how that will come out yet.

HI, though, is a very broad category - not just chain shirts.

J







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

[Ed Forbes]

Long discussion
I think that Warrior needs to look at the entire armor relationship for the
feudal period. There is little relationship between the light chain of Roman
Auxilia classed as LHI and the heavy riveted chain backed by both leather and
padded gamason that a Crusader wore classed as HI, let alone the vastly superior
armor that was developed in later years of this period. These are some general
musings on the period that I hope generates some discussion.

Armor continually became more effective in reaction to an increase in the
effectiveness of missile fire in this period. This arms race continued until
the late Renaissance with the advent of a true musket fire arm which could
penetrate any reasonable weight of armor and give a reasonable rate of fire.
With the advent of the musket, foot starts shedding armor quickly. Mounted would
continue to use at least some armor to the 19th century and the advent of
multishot pistols.

Missile fire starts the feudal period with bows that fire a fairly lightweight
shaft and had little penetrating power against the moderate armor of the early
feudal period that warrior would class as HI, to the CB, then the LB, and
finally hand fire weapons.

There are many accounts of Crusader foot advancing in the face of masses of
horse bow. These foot would have their armor studded with arrows that would
need to be sheared off every so often. The arrows would penetrate the chainmail
just enough to stick, but not enough to penetrate the underlying padded gamason.

The CB was the first reaction to armor that could withstand bow fire. These
early CB had the advantage of penetrating the chain armor of the period, they
were cheep to produce, had a reasonable rate of fire, and were very easy to
train troops to use.

Armor reacted by increasing the amount of plate which could skip a crossbow
quarrel from its surface. The English LB and heavy crossbows were the next
moves to combat this increase in armor effectiveness. Both the LB and the heavy
crossbow were able to penetrate heavy armor at close rage though both had severe
limitations. The English LB took years of both strength and use training and
the heavy crossbow had a very low rate of fire and was complex to build. The
handgun was produced as a relative cheep solution to the problem of combating
armor that was increasingly able to shed both LB shafts and CB quarrels and
solved the issue of the long years of training needed for the LB. The HG could
penetrate all, but suffered from a very short range and a low rate of fire.


One solution would be for Warrior to allow the upgrade of any armor from the
Feudal period from MI to HI and any HI to EHI, allow all close and loose foot to
cost for shields to model their better armor protection, and to eliminate the 1
fatigue point cost to move EHI more than 40 paces or to march. The armor got
better, but not necessarily heavier. Plate is lighter and easier to wear than
chain backed with leather and padding.

To say that there was as much an effect as on a unit of a Greek pike formation
moving while under heavy missile fire as for a EHI unit to move several hundred
yards into position and not under fire is not supportable by history. Movement
rates are so abstracted over time that tactical movement in Warrior is in small
fractional parts of a mile per hour. Fatigue may well play a part for heavier
armored movement for campaigns, but moving the several hundred yards as seen on
a Warrior table should not.

Also on a separate issue, I also believe that the LB factor is much too
prevalent in Warrior. The English LB was a unique invention in history. No
other bow, regardless of length, had the penetrating power of this bow. The
power came not only from its length, but in the in the specifics of the
construction of the bow, the construction and fletching of the arrow, and the
required by law training of the general population to both gain the strength and
skill needed to use the LB. The construction of the bow required specific
woods. Other woods were tried, but they produced inferior bows. The fletching
of the arrow gave the same rifling effect as seen in modern firearms, allowing
greater hitting power. The English and others were able to field true LB units
only after long years of training. This training was mandated by law on a
monthly basis. Once the training was reduced, the effectiveness of the units
declined sharply. Very few armies should get units that have the advantage of
LB factors.

Ed Forbes

Jon Cleaves wrote:
(about armour and the longbow)
> I'll look at this for an x-rule or optional rule when the rulebook
> is done and I turn to all the various extras we want to do for
the
> game.

Is this really a rulebook issue? I'd assume LEHI is going to be
incorporated into the new rulebook now that its been introduced for
the Samurai.

After that doesn't this really become an issue of revisiting the
army lists and adding shields/armour levels where the armour has not
been relatively accurately represented compared to other armies?

Similarly, if someone has concerns about the longbow's
representation in a list, isn't that a list question?

That said, is a revised set of lists next on the agenda after the
rulebook?

Have fun!
Cole

Cole wrote:
> After that doesn't this really become an issue of revisiting the
> army lists and adding shields/armour levels where the armour has
> not been relatively accurately represented compared to other armies?

Jon wrote:
> Ah, one would have to agree Warrior has it wrong to do that, and I
> don't agree.

Your answer makes me wonder if I'm missing some fundamental principle
here.

Is this because there's some behind the scenes "scaling" of technology
going on, so the Swiss infantry's armour, while far superior to the
mail shirt of their predecessors, only counts as HI because its facing
better quality weapons?

Or is it something else entirely?

Thanks
Cole

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/16/2005 22:35:42 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

That sounds like "scaling" to me, and very appropriately used at that. But
you
didn't hear that from FHE.



You gave a very good explanation of how things work, Mark. Thank you.

J


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On Dec 16 Cole said: ---

> Your answer makes me wonder if I'm missing some fundamental principle
> here.
>
> Is this because there's some behind the scenes "scaling" of technology
> going on, so the Swiss infantry's armour, while far superior to the
> mail shirt of their predecessors, only counts as HI because its facing
> better quality weapons?

Well, I don't speak for FHE. And I have only my own personal opinion/observation
to offer. But here goes.

I don't think that FHE has ever explicitly said that "scaling" is part of their
design philosophy. But, whatever their philosophy is, it appears to be
consistent with "scaling". Observe:

FHE has made a commitment to see that historical matchups work out with
historical results, to the extent that any single game system can achieve that.

Despite the fact that Warrior is played in a wide range of contexts that permit
ahistorical matchups, FHE has _never_ said anything about the realism of
Warrior with respect to hypothetical ahistorical matchups.

Thus, for example, FHE has no commitment with regards to what happens when
Damascan steel meets bronze armor, or what happens when bronze weapons strike
Milanese plate.

Putting all this together, it is clear that FHE does not feel that Warrior has
any obligation to see that HI means exactly the same level of technology across
5000 years of warfare. All FHE has commited Warrior to is that within period, in
historical matchups, classifying certain troop types as HI vis a vis the
weapons used against HI will produce results that reasonably reflect historical
outcomes to the extent that any game system can.

That sounds like "scaling" to me, and very appropriately used at that. But you
didn't hear that from FHE.


-Mark Stone

[Ed Forbes]

-- JonCleaves@... wrote:
>HI, though, is a very broad category - not just chain shirts.
>J


Jon,

This logic would say that Greek pike were about twice as effective when under
missile fire than were European pike of the same relative armor class under the
rules. That shieldless factor makes a big difference in relative effectiveness.

I see no evidence that European pike were disordered by missile fire facing the
mass CB and LB of the period at twice the rate than were Macedonian pike
fighting the Persian. The results for pike from both ages under missile fire
should be about the same.

In relative terms, the Persian of the period were the English LB of its time
when it came to missile fire.

Ed

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/19/2005 16:33:25 Central Standard Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

Jon

This is the whole crust of the issue. Mogs were given a pass on actually
needing a shield to benefit from one. It is widely supported that they did not
have a shield. You ever say they did not have a shield. A 24 fig unit of
shieldless Mogs ( given the use of one through the list rule )would have no
trouble with this same number of CB. There are very few instances in history
where
missile fire in pre-gun ages stopped a pike attack cold. Lets turn your
question around and ask you for instances of pike being stopped before contact
by fire. The Scottish vs English LB is the only one that comes to my mind (
and they were more properly LTS ) and this seems more like taking 2 per and
choosing to halt or waver.

Ed



I do believe some proportion of Almughavars had shields. But that horse is
dead and it is not a source on crossbow effectiveness vs shieldless pikemen -
which is what I asked for. Taking and passing a waver is not stopping an
attack cold. Quite often players equate the mechanic of taking a waver test as
the equivalent of failure. It is not. The motivation of shieldless pikemen
was tested by massed archery. That's our view.

You have what our view is. If you want to change it - show us something we
have not seen. Don't turn my question around - answer it or not as you
choose.

And yes, (Greg are you listening? lol) , we are a 'burden of proof is on
the player' organization... this is because we don't have the time to get our
products out how and when we want to, let alone respond to every particular
mechanical dislike with sources and arguments we beat to death internally
years ago. If someone has something - besides their own hunches and
rememberences of secondary sources - that they want to share, we will look at
it. I am
doing that for two people offline now, in fact. But 'hey I think it was this
way so you should change it' will never result in anything but product delays.

Jon


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

[scott holder]

I'm going to rant here in the spirit of the holiday season. I make no apologies
for this but many of the questions, fundamental design philosophy questions that
is, are constantly being raised in here and FHE has made it pretty clear what
our design philosophy is and when I read posts that are categorily insulting to
our "vision", it's no wonder I don't spend as much time on this list as I
should. Here goes:

A question was raised Nicholas Ciorian: "...is a revised set of lists next on
the agenda after the
rulebook?"

You're kidding right? No, I'm sure you're not. And no, a revised set of lists
is not next on the agenda. Are the current lists so crappy, iynsho, that they
require the kind of extensive revision that your posts generally imply? On
second thought, please don't answer that.

Mr Ciorian went on to say: "After that doesn't this really become an issue of
revisiting the army lists and adding shields/armour levels where the armour has
not been relatively accurately represented compared to other armies?

Jon very understatedly replied: "Ah, one would have to agree Warrior has it
wrong to do that, and I
don't agree."

And neither does the main author of the Warrior army lists who finds portions of
Mr Ciorian's post rather insulting--I love being told I'm wrong time and time
again in here. Such a revisitation would be completely contrary to FHE's
Warrior design philosophy. At the end of this post, I'm going to repost
something I stated a while back on *any* game design assumptions and such. It
bears repeating and *understanding*.

Mark Stone then said: "Despite the fact that Warrior is played in a wide range
of contexts that permit
ahistorical matchups, FHE has _never_ said anything about the realism of Warrior
with respect to hypothetical ahistorical matchups...Thus, for example, FHE has
no commitment with regards to what happens when Damascan steel meets bronze
armor, or what happens when bronze weapons strike Milanese plate...Putting all
this together, it is clear that FHE does not feel that Warrior has
any obligation to see that HI means exactly the same level of technology across
5000 years of warfare."

Mark, thank you, extremely well put. Mark's statement is a design assumption on
FHE's part and one that forms a fundamental part of the Warrior engine. Thus,
we have no interest in taking Warrior into another area of design, that being
that there should be gradiations of armor and armament over time.

Sheesh, Warrior is complicated enough. And as Mark pointed out, the historical
matchups using the *existing* mechanical structure work great, thus, no need to
change them. As for fighting outside of period, if the existing structure bugs
you, feel free to concoct your own set of designs based on what you feel should
be an "accurate representation". Don't expect us to drastically change the
engine.

Okay, now begins my lengthy previous post that speaks volumes to the concepts
outlined above. Although it discusses a different specific issue, the general
concepts raised in this post are very applicable to the current discussion.
Here goes:

Every historical rules set, lemme repeat that, EVERY historical rules set has a
vision of how it wants to portray/simulate the period it's intended to cover.
Because historical miniatures is a tactical game (it's hard to design
operational level miniature games and strategic level games are......board
games, think Third Reich), the games tend to be detail oriented. Or if other
design issues (playability, complexity, etc) are bigger factors, then mechanisms
are developed to simplify the treatment of some of the details. Even at the
tactical level, there's a lot of spectrum of activity to cover (skirmish, squad,
brigade, regiment level actions). But, when you get right down to it, any rules
author has a vision of how the period in question, at the level desired, should
be played.

Because of that vision, there are inherent assumptions built into any rules set.
And these assumptions can form the mechanical underpinnings of the game design.
And the further back in time you go, the historical record becomes less complete
and thus, you can't help but rely on context, analysis and modern comparisons as
tools that color your vision. Christian makes a great point about British
Guards at Guilford in that something as recent, and fairly well documented at
that, is still the subject of debate at our level as to the particulars. Heh
heh, hell, even the battlefield site is the subject of intense debate because a
load of people don't think the National Park Service has the Continental Third
Line even in the right location. I bring this up because short of Xenophon or
Alexander or Antigonus zooming thru time for an in-depth debriefing, we simply
are never gonna KNOW things. All we can do is read the record, analyze it,
place it in context and use what we know about other, related areas in order to
develop that vision for the period in question.

The vision is influenced (or even created) by the extant historical record, the
author(s) analysis of the material, the developing context, both ancient and
contemporary, and any modern experience that relates to the period in question.
Factor those things together and you develop a series of assumptions about the
period and then go about developing mechanical constructs to bring that to the
table. If another author has a different vision (or chooses to focus on a
different level or aspect of the tactical spectrum of ops), you then have a
different game. But that author has gone thru the exact same mental process you
have in developing that vision for the period.

In the Warrior engine, bodies of troops, virtually all bodies of troops, have
certain inalienable "rights". I choose that phrase deliberately because like the
inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, a body in
Warrior is granted by "the maker" (in this case the author) certain rights.
These include but are not limited to turning 90 degrees, turning 180 degrees,
wheeling, etc. These rights extend to ALL bodies in Warrior regardless of race,
creed, color, national origin or in the case of certain Greeks, sexual
orientation:). It makes no difference how motivated the body is, or how
well trained it is, the body *still* has these inalienable rights and these
rights flow from the vision and underlying assumptions and intent of the
author(s). The efficiency in which the body exercises these rights is another
factor in the game, an underlying assumption which stems from the vision.
Therefore, your efficiency in doing these things is influenced by your morale
(ability to pass waver checks), training (drilled Regs vs Irr mobs) and
battlefield influences (disorder, terrain, etc). So, while the body might be
inefficient in doing these things (Irr turning 90 degrees and only moving 40p as
opposed to Regs who get to do more things), it still has the right to do these
things. It's built into the game from the outset.

In Warrior, it is assumed that EVERY person stepping onto a battlefield, be they
Saxon Fyrd, Hittite Guardsmen, Aztec Otontin, Crusader Pilgrims, French Knights
and everybody in between has a certain (albeit) basic ability to move forward,
turn 90 degrees, turn 180 degrees, wheel, etc. If you don't agree with the
Warrior vision and assumptions that drive this fundamental construct of the
game: Perhaps. You. Should. Play. Another. Game. Don't get me wrong, I
don't want to drive away players but if you don't share this vision of
ancient/medieval warfare (or don't care and play the game because of the
intellectual exercise and challenge of the complex system in which case this
discussion is irrelevant to you, different subject), then this game is not for
you.

Can anyone show me a detailed battle account or drill manual that explicitly
says that every troop type in the 276 Warrior army lists definitively showed its
ability to turn 90 degrees? Turn 180 degrees? Wheel? No you can't. But to
follow this current thread to it's absurd extreme, that's precisely what FHE is
being asked to do in order to "justify" it's decisions about certain bodies in
specific time periods--which ignores comporable bodies in later time periods
(Swiss Pikemen come to mind).

Do we *know* that a French Knight unit trained to perform in place 90 degree
turns? Do we know if an Aztec Jaguar Knight could do the same thing? How about
a Tang Dynasty Jian'er Spearman? How about a Gallic mob? We might but
probably don't. But you don't need to compile that level of data in the first
place. The vision of Warrior explicitly states that all these guys have certain
inalienable rights and the abilities described are basic mechanics built into
the game. And that assumption is based on the above comments regarding reading
and analyzing the extant historical record and applying any subsequent
experience, modern commentary, etc., the result of which is the Warrior vision
of ancient/medieval warfare. If you don't buy into that vision, see above
recommendation for finding another game that better suits your sensibilities on
this issue.

If we were to "deny" Macedonian pike phalanxes the same inalienable rights that
Saxon Fyrd have in the game, we then have two decision points facing us. The
first is that we scrap the whole Warrior model and adopt something in which
movement in general is more restricted and the entire flavor of battle is very
different than what is portrayed in Warrior, ie., an altogether new or different
game. There are several rules sets out there that do just that. That's one
reason why Warrior exists, and a reason why any other rules set exists: they
provide an outlet for the author(s) and players' vision of ancient/medieval
warfare to be expressed on the table. The second decision point keeps us in a
Warrior context: is there something in the record that, in the opinion of the
author(s), suggests that Troop Type X should be treated differently than Troop
Type Y? That's where the joy of list rules *could* come into play and as
everyone can see, we've not shied away from applying them in cases we feel are
warranted.

But look closely at all the list rules in Warrior army lists and *nowhere* will
you see us deny any body it's inalienable right to turn 90 degrees or turn 180
degrees. It's true that in a limited number of instances we've put limits on
the efficiency in which those rights are exercised (see IW #11, Mithradatic,
Ex-Slave Phalangites for an example) but nowhere have we taken them away.

So why start with Macedonian pike phalanxes? Why pick on them when we allow
half-starved Crusader Pilgrims the right to make such maneuvers? Does the
historical record and our analysis of it factoring in the context of the times,
our vision of ancient/medieval warfare, and experiences of a more modern nature
such as Christian describes provide enough justification for tweaking with such
a basic Warrior construct for this specific type of troops in this context? The
short answer is no. The "level of evidence" would hafta be mighty high in order
to putz with such a fundamental aspect of this game. And it doesn't. If you
disagree, that's too bad.

Nothing is to stop a player, particularly when playing a scenario game and
wanting to duplicate his *vision* of a specific battle, from tweaking the rules
to better fit that vision. Or develop your own rules. That's one reason why
Tactica and then Armati came into being. Or Ancient/Medieval Warfare. If you
have a vision that isn't satisfied by a rules set, you're certainly free to putz
around with it to your heart's content, or go off in an entirely different
direction. But don't expect the rules set's authors to "buy into" your vision
and assumptions.

scott

[Ed Forbes]

-- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:


Mark Stone then said: "Despite the fact that Warrior is played in a wide range
of contexts that permit
ahistorical matchups, FHE has _never_ said anything about the realism of Warrior
with respect to hypothetical ahistorical matchups...Thus, for example, FHE has
no commitment with regards to what happens when Damascan steel meets bronze
armor, or what happens when bronze weapons strike Milanese plate...Putting all
this together, it is clear that FHE does not feel that Warrior has
any obligation to see that HI means exactly the same level of technology across
5000 years of warfare."


scott

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

Scott,

I have no problem with the fact that FHE is most interested in the relative
performance of historical match ups. But lets be very clear on the point that
this thread started, and still focuses, on the seeming imbalance of the relative
balance between pike and other troops, most notably missile troops, in the two
main periods of the use of pike, namely feudal Europe and ancient Greece in
their historical match ups.

Currently with the existing lists, missile fire in the feudal period is
considered to be at least twice as effective against a European pike block than
was Persian missile fire against a Macedonian pike block. If FHE says, yes, we
believe Greek pike were substantially better vs missile than were European pike
in their historical matchups, OK. But I think that this hypothesis would be very
hard to support.

This is easily shown in comparing the movement of 32 fig of Greek Reg C MI pike
sh and 32 fig of European MI, P vs 24 fig of missile.

Greek Pike: The pike march at stop at 240 from Persian Bow. The bow fire long
range with 12 @ 2 for 24= no effect. The pike next bound move forward 80 paces
to 160. The Persian fires again with again no effect. The pike now move to 80
paces. The Persian fires 24 @ a 2 for 48, 1 per. The pike charge to contact and
the Persian fires 24 @ 0 for 24, no effect.

European non Swiss pike. The pike stop at 240 from CB. The CB fires 12 @ 4 for
36, 1 per. The pike move to 160 and again take 1 per. The pike move to 80 and
take 24 @ 4 for 72. The pike must take a waver test.


As the European pike is almost guaranteed to be required to test for wavor due
to shooting from the front, and the Greek would not, proves a substantial
difference in the lists with bias in the relative difference in effect between
these two similar weapon systems against similar historical opponents.

This tread has generated enough questions into the operational use of pike that
Jon has said that the Swiss were going to be redone. He is not sure what will
come out, but it will be different. I postulate that it is not only the Swiss
that needs to be looked at, but European pike as a whole.

Ed

[joncleaves]

<<This tread has generated enough questions into the operational use of pike
that
Jon has said that the Swiss were going to be redone. He is not sure what will
come out, but it will be different. I postulate that it is not only the Swiss
that needs to be looked at, but European pike as a whole. >>

That isn't quite accurate. It isn't this thread that has us looking at the
Swiss, but the one about recoil. And I don't believe I used the word 'redone'
or guaranteed that they will be different - although given that we are really
unhappy with that last bullt in the clarifications, its a safe bet at least that
will change.

But hey, if you've got those sources on shieldless pikemen walking unsupported
into a similar number of crossbowmen without having to undergo the equivalent of
a waver test, please send it to us.

Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

-- JonCleaves@... wrote:


But hey, if you've got those sources on shieldless pikemen walking unsupported
into a similar number of crossbowmen without having to undergo the equivalent of
a waver test, please send it to us.

Jon
--------

Jon

This is the whole crust of the issue. Mogs were given a pass on actually needing
a shield to benefit from one. It is widely supported that they did not have a
shield. You ever say they did not have a shield. A 24 fig unit of shieldless
Mogs ( given the use of one through the list rule )would have no trouble with
this same number of CB. There are very few instances in history where missile
fire in pre-gun ages stopped a pike attack cold. Lets turn your question around
and ask you for instances of pike being stopped before contact by fire. The
Scottish vs English LB is the only one that comes to my mind ( and they were
more properly LTS ) and this seems more like taking 2 per and choosing to halt
or waver.

Ed

Ed

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

OK, fair enough. I understand that it's your rules, so your terms of reality are
what matters. I am just trying to work within this reality.

I have been trying to pose my questions as a relationship between similar combat
systems. In this case, taking the assumption that Greek pike and European pike
would have many similar problems of use on the battlefield. If both performed
about the same against similar troop types, then my thinking is that the factors
in use in the game should be about the same for both. I make the assumption
that much of the lists are results based as much as what the armies might carry
as equipment. Is this a correct understanding of how FHE rates the armies of
different ages and tech bases?

Also note that the issues being brought up on pike are list, not core rules
related.

There has been enough list changes over the last several years that we readers
can not automatically take it as a given that everything in the lists are rock
solid and not subject to change. If you wanted customers who did not push, you
have defiantly picked the wrong business.

So, as the lists give a definite advantage to Greek pike moving against massed
fire in relation to how the lists rate European pike moving against massed fire,
I take it that FHE is of the opinion that Greek pike was superior to European
pike in obtaining results against similar historical opponents that use mass
fire?

If the answer is yes, I will end this thread and wait for the new Swiss rules.
Be warned though, I not only continually beat dead horses, I have them stuffed
-)

Ed