Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> I've found the cav to be so weak as that a 6E LI B unit can basically
shoot it out of the saddle in 1 bound prompting a charge or waver and have
11 or 12 CPF for 2E unit. I just don't like this effect early in the game.
Where I loose is in waver tests.

Hmm. Thats not good. I would tend to keep them away from B (I realize this
will not always be possible)

> I thought about your idea for LI. I typically run my Norman HC behind LI
screens exactly as you say; ablative armor LI leave exposed and tired enemy
often. Then again, if the LI are not consumed the HC will be disordered for
charging through. The Close order infantry -2 for disorder is a show
stopper for hoplites IMO.

I do not charge through my own LI. I use the LI to pin down 1E frontage of
an enemy foot body, and whack the overhang with the LTS guys.


> Smaller hoplite blocks....hmm. Seems ahistorical and slow and fragile,
but then I know the larger blocks are just not working. IIUC, you are
suggesting 4E blocks in line. Wouldn't this present more difficulties in
terms of missile fire absorbtion? One of the nice things about 8E blocks is
they basically ignore missile fire. Just wondering if the manuverability is
worth it. Also, the single mounted charge into the smaller block will more
likely disorder the HI wouldn't it?

Well missile fire can be mitigated by standing shoulder to shoulder (with
the intermixed peltasts in some instances). B vs HI is 1 factor, and the
most B he can get on you is 8 per frontage so you take 12 for 1 CPF. If you
are using the HI/LMI set up (see below), you just even the LMI up to keep 8
bow max per frontage of hoplites. A single mounted charge into the 4E
hoplites should do 5@4+1+2-2 (charging, imp, steady LTS) = 20. This is 1
CPF. Recoil and disorder so yes to that. However the smaller untis mean
his cav is now very vulnerable on bound 2 to a charge from the neighboring
foot. His cav will alos almost certainly be tired and potentially
disordered as well. To stop this, he has to bring waves of cav.
>
> The problems I'm having with unease is on the flanks where the mounted
need to hide rather than support :)

Use woods.

> As for peltast within the hoplite line, how do you keep from testing waver
when the enemy mounted charge the LMI? Again, I loose when I test wavers,
so this is critical to me.

This is easy. The peltasts stand 1p stepped back behind the Hoplites line.
So you have a line of 2X2 hoplites, then 1X4 peltasts stepped back 1p, then
2X2 hoplites again. The peltasts can not be charged due to gaps
prohibitions.

Don

[Mark Stone]

So, there's another issue about the performance of Hoplites that's worth
mentioning.

It's an axiom of Warrior open tournament play -- and one that Ewan has commented
on -- that heterogeneous armies fair better than homogeneous armies. This has a
peculiar consequence, namely that many "ascendant" armies of a given
civilization appear on paper to be inferior to their "twilight" counterparts.

Thus Seleucids appears to be a better list than Alexandrian Macedonian, Late
Imperial Roman appears to be a better list than Camillan Roman, etc. Much of
this is an artifact of playing out of period in open tournament play.
Alexander, for example, used phalanxes and companion cavalry to the max because
in his time those two troop types outclassed their respective counterparts
(JLS- or LTS-armed foot in the case of phalanxes, and JLS-armed cav in the case
of companions). This technology advantage disappears in open tournament play.

But I also think that part of the problem may be that early "ascendant" armies
were, in fact, inferior to their more mature and more heterogeneous successors.
Such armies tended to come from a particular culture, a particular geographical
region, and often with a tradition of specific tactical doctrines. That such
armies succeeded is a relfection of the limit of how much (or how little) troop
type matters. Alexander won primarily because he was a general without peer in
his time. The same with Caesar. They could win against numerical superiority,
or more heavily armed or armored opponents because they were simply better
generals.

It's hard to make "be a better general" into a very helpful guide for players.
And certainly, if you have wide-ranging historical interests, selecting a
heterogeneous army from among your many interests is part of being a better
general. But I don't think the situation is hopeless for those interested in
fairly "monolithic" armies like Hoplite Greek, Incans, or Aztecs. Even within
these armies there is some variation in troop types and weapon types. And as a
general you have tremendous lattitude in what size you buy your units in, what
commands you assign them to, and what "pods" they work within. Even relatively
homogeneous troop types can take on different functions and different roles
depending on how you organize them. A 32-figure block of LTS functions very
differently from an 8-figure unit of LTS. Add in a few light troops, a few
cavalry of some kind, and a few loose order foot and you have enough
differentiation to think about combined arms and workable tactics within the
limitations of your army.

Are you playing at a competitive disadvantage in open tournament format? Sure.
Are you playing at a hopeless disadvantage? No.


-Mark Stone

[Mike Bard]

Quick note...

I have no plans at this time to give up Hoplites (although the six
consequitive down 3/4 along with the enemy up 3/4 certainly pushed me very
close for a short time). Probably I'm going to switch to Syracuse for open
tournaments (due to the additional troop type availability) but I've wanted
to do hoplites for 30 years and it's going to take more than a few setbacks
(or even the complete inability to ever win -- if it comes to that) to stop
me.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

P.S. I haven't abandoned Platea, I've just been doing research to find out
how Persians are painted (and should be able to post my results/suggestions
next week).

Once again, Mark's perspective is worthy of contemplation. I agree
especially with his last statement.

For my experiences running Syracusan in TOG, it is not hopeless at
all. However, you have to adjust your goals with very linear armies
that have very little ability to move laterally. IMO, shooting
aside, the inability of close order foot to effectively shift fronts
is a great hinderance in all the different rules systems I've
played. This is also historical from what I've read.

The key, I think, is to plan carefully, practice and tweak a set
battle plan, and hold to your plan in tournament play.

Typically with Syracusans I ran the obvious troops, RgD MI LTS trash
in large blocks, RgB HI/MI LTS is 4E blocks, with Gauls, LI, and
shieldless HC. I used much terrain, strategems, ditches, ambush,
flank march etc. One nice thing about flankmarching a 32 or 48 man
MI LTS units is that they will often win the off table flank march
fight and push the enemy flank march back. This is very useful with
a major water feature on one side. To get the other guy to chance
his plan is always a bonus.

Now with warrior, you are also not halted permenantly by LI. Thus
you can present a wall of spears and continue to push forward rather
than fight the good fight 8 inches from your baseline. With large
units shooting is not a factor, but then SHK are always a problem as
are pike.

My expectations with this army was to thwart other's plans for
victory, so "active defense" was my mantra. I was playing mostly
some the premium players in the south of that time. People like
Derek, Chris, Edge, Jake, and all that crowd. I never gave up a 5 to
anyone, lost only half my games on points, actually beat armies like
Aztecs and Alex Imp., so I account that something for an army of
targets ;)

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> So, there's another issue about the performance of Hoplites that's
worth
> mentioning.
>
> It's an axiom of Warrior open tournament play -- and one that Ewan
has commented
> on -- that heterogeneous armies fair better than homogeneous
armies. This has a
> peculiar consequence, namely that many "ascendant" armies of a given
> civilization appear on paper to be inferior to their "twilight"
counterparts.
>
> Thus Seleucids appears to be a better list than Alexandrian
Macedonian, Late
> Imperial Roman appears to be a better list than Camillan Roman,
etc. Much of
> this is an artifact of playing out of period in open tournament
play.
> Alexander, for example, used phalanxes and companion cavalry to the
max because
> in his time those two troop types outclassed their respective
counterparts
> (JLS- or LTS-armed foot in the case of phalanxes, and JLS-armed cav
in the case
> of companions). This technology advantage disappears in open
tournament play.
>
> But I also think that part of the problem may be that
early "ascendant" armies
> were, in fact, inferior to their more mature and more heterogeneous
successors.
> Such armies tended to come from a particular culture, a particular
geographical
> region, and often with a tradition of specific tactical doctrines.
That such
> armies succeeded is a relfection of the limit of how much (or how
little) troop
> type matters. Alexander won primarily because he was a general
without peer in
> his time. The same with Caesar. They could win against numerical
superiority,
> or more heavily armed or armored opponents because they were simply
better
> generals.
>
> It's hard to make "be a better general" into a very helpful guide
for players.
> And certainly, if you have wide-ranging historical interests,
selecting a
> heterogeneous army from among your many interests is part of being
a better
> general. But I don't think the situation is hopeless for those
interested in
> fairly "monolithic" armies like Hoplite Greek, Incans, or Aztecs.
Even within
> these armies there is some variation in troop types and weapon
types. And as a
> general you have tremendous lattitude in what size you buy your
units in, what
> commands you assign them to, and what "pods" they work within. Even
relatively
> homogeneous troop types can take on different functions and
different roles
> depending on how you organize them. A 32-figure block of LTS
functions very
> differently from an 8-figure unit of LTS. Add in a few light
troops, a few
> cavalry of some kind, and a few loose order foot and you have enough
> differentiation to think about combined arms and workable tactics
within the
> limitations of your army.
>
> Are you playing at a competitive disadvantage in open tournament
format? Sure.
> Are you playing at a hopeless disadvantage? No.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Mike Bard]

Sorry to take so long to get back to this, but it's been a busy
weekend/week...

I'm not going to give up, in fact I have no plans to give up. I'm stubborn
that way. I've wanted to do Hoplites for 30 years and I'm going to make
them work if it kills me!

Now to some more specific comments:

1. Syracusans/Homogenous/Heterogenous Armies:

For good or bad, Warrior is based on WRG which is based on the notion that
technology was the most important factor in military superiority. Hence its
low level classification of weapons and armour systems. Because it is
structured, rightly or wrongly, in a 'rock/paper/scissors' format, armies
with a multitude of troop types are going to do better because they have a
higher probability of getting their rock to hit the enemy scissors. Armies
with few troop types have to work harder - and it's more satisfying when
they win.

2. Missile Armed Cavalry:

The only solution against an entirely bow/lance armed force is to force
march the entire army and attempt to push them off the board. Their best
choice is to concentrate heavy cavalry against a single hoplite unit. I run
my blocks as 24 currently (more on that later), so consider the following
example:

24 hoplites: Reg C MI, LTS, Sh, 3 elements wide, 2 elements deep. Point
Cost: 106
18 cavalary: Reg C HC, L, B, Sh, 3 units, each 1 element wide and 2 deep.
Point Cost: 82 per unit, 246 total.

Note: The rest of the hoplite army is delayed by skirmishing LC. Note that
the cavalry have a significant point advantage over the hoplites.

Option 1: Cavalry charge impetuously (giving them all the breaks):

Lance vs MI, Mounted Charge, Impetuous, facing LTS: Factor 5. 15 figures in
contact (full front rank, half second) -> 60
Support Shooting (Rear Rank) B vs MI, contact: Factor 0. 9 figures
shooting -> 9

Steady LTS vs Impetuous Mtd Charge: Factor 5. 18 figures in contact (full
front rank, half second, 6 vs each block of cavalry) -> 72 (24 each)

Results: Cavalry repulsed, tired etc. Hoplites take 2 fatigue.

Note: If the hoplites are disordered then the cavalry has a factor of 7
(no -2 for facing steady LTS) and do 90; hoplites have a factor of 2 (-2
disordered, no +1 for steady LTS receiving mounted charge) and do 36 (12
each). Hoplites are routed.

Option 2: Shooting before the charge.

Shooters must do 3 CPF or 72.

Bow vs. MI has factor of 2. 6 figures count as shooting against single
hoplite block. To do 72 with 18 figures there must be a factor of 5, or
each unit must roll up 3. The odds of rolling up 3 are 1 in 46,656.
Unlikely, but it can happen.

Conclusions: If hoplites can stand with a solid line anchored at both ends
so that they cannot be flanked, then all the cavalry can do is shoot and
hope for the lucky streak at one point. If they get it, they win. If they
don't, it's a tie game. All the hoplite player can do is stand there and
take it, hoping the cavalry player doesn't get lucky. If the hoplite player
tries to advance, eventually a flank will be exposed and then it's down to
position and die rolls. Likely the cavalry player has the better position
and will be able to take advantage of any flanks. The cavalry player
doesn't care about flanks as everybody is able to evade (in skirmish*).
Thus, to resolve the game to a victory, the hoplite player has to hope the
cavalry player does something stupid; the cavalry player just has to hope
for some luck.

*Yes, with the cavalry in skirmish, only 15 figures can shoot which have no
possiblity of 3 CPF. However, LC in skirmish can get more figures shooting,
and careful angling of units could concentrate 25 shooting HC on a target
(if the two flanks are turned slighting to put the target unit in front.
With 25 figures the cavalry player only needs to roll up 2 for all 5 units
(a 1 in 19,663 chance). Columns of 12 LC figure units yields 7 shooters per
frontage, or 35 shooters at one unit which needs only an up 1 overall (or
various other possibilities). Much, much more likely.

3. Hoplite Unit Size/Tactics:

Things have been slowly evolving and I've been forming the following
tactical advice as general concepts. Comments are invited.

- run hoplites in groups of 24. Three elements frontage allows a unit to
switch to column, and then right/left face in a single bound.
- have spare single rank hoplites. Since I base my core hoplites 2 deep,
there is no way to change to a 2 element frontage so I've made some 'change'
elements. This allows an easy opening of a 'hole' if I need to.
- keep the celts in the woods where they belong. For whatever reason, my
Irreg A Celts virtually never roll up. My original thought was to set
things up so that a hoplite block charges in bound N, and the celts charge
in bound N+1 hopefully breaking the target unit. If I roll up it works,
when I don't it doesn't. Now I put the celts in the woods where they don't
need to roll up to win against most opponents, and I'm not depending on
random chance for victory.
- keep the spaniards behind the celts for the bound N+1 impetuous charge.
The spaniards are armed with HTW which has a significantly higher base
factor against most troop types. They don't need to roll up as the weapon
gives them most of the impact potential they need. Thus they are more
likely to push an enemy foot unit over the edge (statistically) than celts.
Especially the way I roll dice.

I'm currently experimenting with slingers as they can provide some shooting
potential, especially against heavily armoured opponents.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy who has NOT given up!

I've been pondering an x-rule for hoplites for some time. As a
player of napoleonics and other eras, one of things that always
forces one to play in those eras in a suedo-historical manner
is "support" from flank and rear. the game Age of Reason was the
first I used that had this concept, and by my thinking this could be
a list rules for hoplites alone.

The rule is that if a unit of hoplites is supported on both flanks by
steady units or difficult terrain, then they act as the next higher
morale class. So a unit of C hoplites would waver and be eagar as B
hoplites. Maybe cost them 1 point per element more.


> I'm currently experimenting with slingers as they can provide some
shooting
> potential, especially against heavily armoured opponents.
>
> Michael Bard
> That Greek Hoplite Guy who has NOT given up!

hooting aside, slingers are a need in this army :)

Wanax

[John Garlic]

I have a slew of hoplites myself, but after seeing "Greek's" paint-job, mine
are too embarrassed to come out of the toolbox :-)

John Garlic

> >I'm not going to give up, in fact I have no plans to give up. I'm
> stubborn
> >that way. I've wanted to do Hoplites for 30 years and I'm going
> to make
> >them work if it kills me!
>
> Good. Maybe after ClassWar I will join you. Except I prefer the
> Spartans as Agesilaus in Asia mid-390's where he has the
> Paphlagonians.



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

[Chris Bump]

Seems that the rule for this is already in place. Glass half empty or half full
type of thing. C class hoplites that are unsupported basically test as D's.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Wanax Andron
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:30 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Hoplites


I've been pondering an x-rule for hoplites for some time. As a
player of napoleonics and other eras, one of things that always
forces one to play in those eras in a suedo-historical manner
is "support" from flank and rear. the game Age of Reason was the
first I used that had this concept, and by my thinking this could be
a list rules for hoplites alone.

The rule is that if a unit of hoplites is supported on both flanks by
steady units or difficult terrain, then they act as the next higher
morale class. So a unit of C hoplites would waver and be eagar as B
hoplites. Maybe cost them 1 point per element more.


> I'm currently experimenting with slingers as they can provide some
shooting
> potential, especially against heavily armoured opponents.
>
> Michael Bard
> That Greek Hoplite Guy who has NOT given up!

hooting aside, slingers are a need in this army :)

Wanax


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bard" <mwbard@r...>
wrote:
> I'm not going to give up, in fact I have no plans to give up. I'm
stubborn
> that way. I've wanted to do Hoplites for 30 years and I'm going
to make
> them work if it kills me!

Good. Maybe after ClassWar I will join you. Except I prefer the
Spartans as Agesilaus in Asia mid-390's where he has the
Paphlagonians.

> 1. Syracusans/Homogenous/Heterogenous Armies:
> armies
> with a multitude of troop types are going to do better because
they have a
> higher probability of getting their rock to hit the enemy scissors.

This does seem to be true, and is a hurdle I am getting over. My
problem is running an army with a gazillion different unit types is
mentally exhausting, and the risk is that instead of hitting his
scissors with your rock you invariably find yourself facing his
scissors with your paper - less of an issue with homogeneous armies.
But I suppose it is something one has to get used to.

> 2. Missile Armed Cavalry:
> Option 1: Cavalry charge impetuously (giving them all the breaks):

All this part looked fine. And if you do like you said and force
march pushing him off the table I can tell you from being on the
losing (cav) end of that it does work. It is not as easy as you
think to get around a tiny flank area when massively outnumbered by
large foot units aalready in your face spanning most of the board.

> Option 2: Shooting before the charge.
> The odds of rolling up 3 are 1 in 46,656.

Problem is, unlike HtH in shooting you only roll once for each
_taget_ unit. So only a single roll is made for the whole hoplite
unit and the odds of that single up-3 become 1 in 36.

Taken out over a line of hoplites and the length of a battle it
could happen. But I'd say facing a single-minded cavalry army
depending on this for their plan you are likely to beat the odds as
by the time a unit gets disordered he is going to be in serious
trouble.

But that is my guess based on apparently not a lot of relative
experience.

> All the hoplite player can do is stand there and
> take it, hoping the cavalry player doesn't get lucky. If the
hoplite player
> tries to advance, eventually a flank will be exposed

Use more terrain and place to cover this. It might help. Really if
your flanks are covered stationary IMO you should be able to keep
them so as you advance.

> With 25 figures the cavalry player only needs to roll up 2 for all
5 units
> (a 1 in 19,663 chance).

Once again, only a single roll per target so only I think 5 in 36.

> 35 shooters at one unit which needs only an up 1 overall (or
> various other possibilities). Much, much more likely.

Yes now you are down to a single up-1 which is maybe 13 in 36.

> - keep the celts in the woods where they belong. For whatever
reason, my
> Irreg A Celts virtually never roll up. My original thought was to
set
> things up so that a hoplite block charges in bound N, and the
celts charge
> in bound N+1 hopefully breaking the target unit. If I roll up it
works,
> when I don't it doesn't. Now I put the celts in the woods where
they don't
> need to roll up to win against most opponents, and I'm not
depending on
> random chance for victory.
> - keep the spaniards behind the celts for the bound N+1 impetuous
charge.
> The spaniards are armed with HTW which has a significantly higher
base
> factor against most troop types. They don't need to roll up as
the weapon
> gives them most of the impact potential they need. Thus they are
more
> likely to push an enemy foot unit over the edge (statistically)
than celts.
> Especially the way I roll dice.

All this actually sounds pretty good especially as both are troops
that do well in woods so they can certainly function there just as
well while other enemy stuff may not. Stops them from dealing with
enemy mounted too.

But once you drive the enemy out of the woods (and I would take a
ton for reasons already mentioned) I don't think I would pass up a
chance to threaten a flank of the enemy line in the open.

The biggest problem with troops like this is simply their tendency
to exhaust themselves and self-destruct for no reason even when they
do roll up and win.

> I'm currently experimenting with slingers as they can provide some
shooting
> potential, especially against heavily armoured opponents.

By all means. And shielded LI (if you can get any) in large units,
as I have finally had it drubbed into me, can also really mess up
enemy mounted if kept within support range from your hoplites.

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bard" >mwbard@r...
> wrote:
>
> stubborn
>
> to make
>
>
> Good. Maybe after ClassWar I will join you. Except I prefer the
> Spartans as Agesilaus in Asia mid-390's where he has the
> Paphlagonians.
>
>
>

Good. I'll challenge both of you with my Theban/Thessalian army of
Epaminondas, anytime, anywhere (in 15mm, of course).


Greek

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> Good. I'll challenge both of you with my Theban/Thessalian army of
> Epaminondas, anytime, anywhere (in 15mm, of course).

Deal. How about a 15mm game Sunday at ColdWars2005?

[Mike Bard]

The 15mm game is fine with me... except all my hoplites are 25mm. If I can
borrow a portion of a 15mm army then I would be interested (depending on my
ride situation of course).

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy


> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > Good. I'll challenge both of you with my Theban/Thessalian army of
> > Epaminondas, anytime, anywhere (in 15mm, of course).
>
> Deal. How about a 15mm game Sunday at ColdWars2005?

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
>
>
>
> Deal. How about a 15mm game Sunday at ColdWars2005?
>
>
>

That'll be great...if I make it. To paraphrase Rick Blaine, "i never make
plans that far ahead." BTW, if you have not done so, check out my army
list under files section of this warrior group. Wouldn't want to catch you
by surprise...well at least not this far in advance.



Greek

In a message dated 04/06/2004 04:38:46 GMT Daylight Time, mwbard@...
writes:

Bow vs. MI has factor of 2. 6 figures count as shooting against single
hoplite block. To do 72 with 18 figures there must be a factor of 5, or
each unit must roll up 3. The odds of rolling up 3 are 1 in 46,656.
Unlikely, but it can happen.

Hello,
Could you please explain why each unit needs to throw up 3 as P66 says that
the random factor is only thrown once for each target body (8.91 lines 4 & 5).
Thanks, Steve


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

[Ed Forbes]

up 3 is the same odds as "boxcars" (two sixes on d6's) and is much better than
stated at about 5% ( a little less than 1 in 20).


> The odds of rolling up 3 are 1 in 46,656.
Unlikely, but it can happen.





Yahoo! Groups Links






________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!