Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

A friend of mine has reiterated his reasons for concluding that 7th
edition fails as a rational game simulation design. I'd like FHE to
comment on whether Warrior is subject to these percieved failings.
He sees the List Rules as a band aid, not fine-tuning. Note that he
hasn't yet seen the Boyd/Scott discourse with the three "problem
solved" examples. I've just emailed it to him.

I. First, they cleave to the WRG 7th notion of "sidearms", as the
default combat equipment of, well, prety much anybody. This is a
pretty bad idea, demontrably, as it ignores real world considerations
like training, not to mention leading to bizarre results like giving
stone-throwers with large crews astounding resisting ability in hand
to hand (seen that several times on the 7th boards).

But never mind the theory, let's look at the results. I'm going
to look at it two different ways, with and without the "special sword
and buckler" bonuses.

II. First without. Suppose we have a maniple of Late Republic Romans
.. . minus their pila. Against them we array an equal number of War
of the Roses English archers . . minus their bows (or just make it
wet). Well, in the real world, the Romans are just going to mop the
floor with the bowmen. Marius trained his legions with gladiators,
professional swordsmen. And trained them hard. But a straight WRG
interp has it an even fight.
Bad enough, but it gets worse. Now we add the special "sword and
buckler bonus" to the bowmen. Now (by the rules, anyway) they should
have the upper hand!

III. ...trying to explain everything by equipment (understandable, I
used to do it myself), and then extrapolating to impair the system in
general. For example, at Agincourt, some French infantry made it to
the English line. Armored men, with heavy weapons, ended up getting
beaten off by sword and bucklers - must be Great S&B, right? Wrong.
The French had just marched in heavy armor acrosss a field of mud
(the effect of which would be fully taken into account by WRG 7th's
fatigue rules), they were advancing into lanes to avoid (annoying but
not deadly) arrow fire, and thus had flanks exposed to several times
their own frontage, and most of what they initially contacted were
dismounted knights, as well equiped as they were, just a lot less
tired.

Doesn't Warrior allow a second rank of bowmen to shoot from behind
the HI... so is that how English HYW units should be set up?

--

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]

> I'd like FHE to comment on whether Warrior is subject to these percieved
failings. >>

I can't speak for the other three, but I know I am not going to comment on these
'failings.'

[Doug]

> > I'd like FHE to comment on whether Warrior is subject to these
>percieved failings. >>
>
>I can't speak for the other three, but I know I am not going to
>comment on these 'failings.'

Well, _I_ don't know either system. I don't know if the examples he
gives actually work out in the way he believes. I'd like to be able
to either correct him or provide a design rationale; then he might
become interested.

Personally, I can accept Roman Legionaires being equalled in melee by
HYW longbowmen at least under some circumstances because out of
period matchups need to have play balance. But if large artillery
crews beat up on their attackers, that does sound like a flaw.
--

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)

[scott holder]

Personally, I can accept Roman Legionaires being equalled in melee by
HYW longbowmen at least under some circumstances because out of
period matchups need to have play balance. But if large artillery
crews beat up on their attackers, that does sound like a flaw.

>They don't and, more importantly, large artillery crews are extremely
rare in the lists (old or new or revised or whatever). True, the first
time someone slams a LI unit into artillery only to be repulsed, the
standard reaction is incredulity. However, play the game a second time
and you learn how to beat up the artillery (peltasts do remarkably well,
plus you need to coordinate the attack with at least 2 units so as to
suck off potentially debilitating arty fire and try to work around the
"emplacement"). Keep in mind that all you need to do to an artillery
piece is 1 CPF and more in H-T-H and kerblooooieeeeee, artillery is
destroyed.

>I look at it this way, if artillery were so dominant, both in missile
fire *and* in H-T-H, then my Sung Chinese would have ruled the
tournament circuit years ago. They don't even come close.

>I'd also suggest people go back and run numbers and "standard unit
sizes" for stereotypical Romans (Poly, Marian, EIR) vs Barbarian trash
(what they were really designed to beat) and you'll find that over the
course of a melee and all even die rolls, the Romans don't really need
the "gladus rule" to be effective. The key here are even die rolls.
The aim (agree or disagree, it is the aim) is for the Barbarian trash to
get a mongo up roll in order to win. If they don't, they die,
eventually, since the Romans will take less fatigue over the course of
the melee.

>Also keep in mind that this doesn't apply to Romans vs Successor pike
trash. Read the accounts from Pydna and Cynsosephalae (sp) and you'll
discover how generally ineffective the maniples were against a
determined pike block; other battlefield factors contributed to Rome's
success against that particular military model. According to some
modern commentators, this is one possible reason why Rome moved from the
manipular system to a cohortal one.

Scott
List Ho

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good Points!
--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> Personally, I can accept Roman Legionaires being
> equalled in melee by
> HYW longbowmen at least under some circumstances
> because out of
> period matchups need to have play balance. But if
> large artillery
> crews beat up on their attackers, that does sound
> like a flaw.
>
> >They don't and, more importantly, large artillery
> crews are extremely
> rare in the lists (old or new or revised or
> whatever). True, the first
> time someone slams a LI unit into artillery only to
> be repulsed, the
> standard reaction is incredulity. However, play the
> game a second time
> and you learn how to beat up the artillery (peltasts
> do remarkably well,
> plus you need to coordinate the attack with at least
> 2 units so as to
> suck off potentially debilitating arty fire and try
> to work around the
> "emplacement"). Keep in mind that all you need to
> do to an artillery
> piece is 1 CPF and more in H-T-H and
> kerblooooieeeeee, artillery is
> destroyed.
>
> >I look at it this way, if artillery were so
> dominant, both in missile
> fire *and* in H-T-H, then my Sung Chinese would have
> ruled the
> tournament circuit years ago. They don't even come
> close.
>
> >I'd also suggest people go back and run numbers and
> "standard unit
> sizes" for stereotypical Romans (Poly, Marian, EIR)
> vs Barbarian trash
> (what they were really designed to beat) and you'll
> find that over the
> course of a melee and all even die rolls, the Romans
> don't really need
> the "gladus rule" to be effective. The key here are
> even die rolls.
> The aim (agree or disagree, it is the aim) is for
> the Barbarian trash to
> get a mongo up roll in order to win. If they don't,
> they die,
> eventually, since the Romans will take less fatigue
> over the course of
> the melee.
>
> >Also keep in mind that this doesn't apply to Romans
> vs Successor pike
> trash. Read the accounts from Pydna and
> Cynsosephalae (sp) and you'll
> discover how generally ineffective the maniples were
> against a
> determined pike block; other battlefield factors
> contributed to Rome's
> success against that particular military model.
> According to some
> modern commentators, this is one possible reason why
> Rome moved from the
> manipular system to a cohortal one.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good Points!
--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> Personally, I can accept Roman Legionaires being
> equalled in melee by
> HYW longbowmen at least under some circumstances
> because out of
> period matchups need to have play balance. But if
> large artillery
> crews beat up on their attackers, that does sound
> like a flaw.
>
> >They don't and, more importantly, large artillery
> crews are extremely
> rare in the lists (old or new or revised or
> whatever). True, the first
> time someone slams a LI unit into artillery only to
> be repulsed, the
> standard reaction is incredulity. However, play the
> game a second time
> and you learn how to beat up the artillery (peltasts
> do remarkably well,
> plus you need to coordinate the attack with at least
> 2 units so as to
> suck off potentially debilitating arty fire and try
> to work around the
> "emplacement"). Keep in mind that all you need to
> do to an artillery
> piece is 1 CPF and more in H-T-H and
> kerblooooieeeeee, artillery is
> destroyed.
>
> >I look at it this way, if artillery were so
> dominant, both in missile
> fire *and* in H-T-H, then my Sung Chinese would have
> ruled the
> tournament circuit years ago. They don't even come
> close.
>
> >I'd also suggest people go back and run numbers and
> "standard unit
> sizes" for stereotypical Romans (Poly, Marian, EIR)
> vs Barbarian trash
> (what they were really designed to beat) and you'll
> find that over the
> course of a melee and all even die rolls, the Romans
> don't really need
> the "gladus rule" to be effective. The key here are
> even die rolls.
> The aim (agree or disagree, it is the aim) is for
> the Barbarian trash to
> get a mongo up roll in order to win. If they don't,
> they die,
> eventually, since the Romans will take less fatigue
> over the course of
> the melee.
>
> >Also keep in mind that this doesn't apply to Romans
> vs Successor pike
> trash. Read the accounts from Pydna and
> Cynsosephalae (sp) and you'll
> discover how generally ineffective the maniples were
> against a
> determined pike block; other battlefield factors
> contributed to Rome's
> success against that particular military model.
> According to some
> modern commentators, this is one possible reason why
> Rome moved from the
> manipular system to a cohortal one.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com