Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

Why was IRR LTS increased in capacity over reg Pike and reg LTS?

I never liked the overall Impetuous rules in 7th but the warrior rules
for impetuous LTS looks to be pike killers, going way beyond 7th in
irregulars over powering pike and reg LTS.

The way I read 9.3, both impetuous and non impetuous LTS chargers receive
2 full ranks able to fight.

reg pike / LTS charge is canceled by impetuous and only able to fight
with 2 ranks.

Impetuous LTS takes a -2 hth factor for being non-impetous LTS facing
pike / LTS

The LTS gains back +2 for being impetuous and +1 for charging.

For combat the impetuous LTS has a net +1 with the same weapon factor.
Even number of fig agtainst pike and more fig against the reg LTS

If the pike lose ( odds are they will ), they become disordered and take
-2 for next combat, and again odds are they will lose.

Historically, trained, reg, pike armies or Greek Hopolite armies did not
have trouble in a face to face combat with masses of irreg forces.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Canceling of non impetuous inf charges by impetuous inf came with 7th.
It needs to go away with 7th.

Ed F

[Greg Regets]

Close Order LTS would only get +1 for charging and +1 for impetuous. This
would cancel out the -2 for facing Pike. Loose order LTS do not count as
many figures. The fight is a straight wash.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@...]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:56 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] IRR LTS vs reg Pike / LTS?



Why was IRR LTS increased in capacity over reg Pike and reg LTS?

I never liked the overall Impetuous rules in 7th but the warrior rules
for impetuous LTS looks to be pike killers, going way beyond 7th in
irregulars over powering pike and reg LTS.

The way I read 9.3, both impetuous and non impetuous LTS chargers receive
2 full ranks able to fight.

reg pike / LTS charge is canceled by impetuous and only able to fight
with 2 ranks.

Impetuous LTS takes a -2 hth factor for being non-impetous LTS facing
pike / LTS

The LTS gains back +2 for being impetuous and +1 for charging.

For combat the impetuous LTS has a net +1 with the same weapon factor.
Even number of fig agtainst pike and more fig against the reg LTS

If the pike lose ( odds are they will ), they become disordered and take
-2 for next combat, and again odds are they will lose.

Historically, trained, reg, pike armies or Greek Hopolite armies did not
have trouble in a face to face combat with masses of irreg forces.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Canceling of non impetuous inf charges by impetuous inf came with 7th.
It needs to go away with 7th.

Ed F


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Chris Bump]

Isn't the idea of impetitious charges preempting non such charges along the
lines of the word impetitious. Shouldn't this be something that cannot be
controlled? I can certianly understand an impetitious charge pre-empting a
charge or counter charge from 40 or maybe 60 paces away to account for the
surprise of the impetitious burst of energy. This seems highly unlikely from
greater distances. Surely troops could respond to troops charging from 60 or
more paces away, couldn't they?

I am comfortable with the LTS rules as they are written, but do think that
impetitious charges might be looked at, and I run pre-Feudal Scots!!!! I know
that we are well past design modifications, perhaps list rules can in some way
address this?

Chris

Yep. Assuming no other factors (downhill, disorder, yadda) it comes
down to the dice roll. And let's face it, who would WANT to allow
Pike to get a charge in?

Loose only get 1.5 ranks on the charge so an impetuous charge will
only give them an overall +1 so, the LMI needs to roll a +1 ON
TOP of the fighting factors to even the fight.

Even with that, it will still be a push-n-shove contest.

eg 8 MI P is 8 @ 3 = 20
6 LMI LTS is 5 @ 3 + 1 (charge) + 2 (imp) - 2 (face P)
becomes 5 @ 4 = 15

Remember two basic rules.
1, "It only hurts when you roll the dice."
2, "Roll high when you opponent rolls low."





--- In WarriorRules@y..., Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Close Order LTS would only get +1 for charging and +1 for impetuous.
This
> would cancel out the -2 for facing Pike. Loose order LTS do not
count as
> many figures. The fight is a straight wash.
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@j...]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:56 PM
> To: WarriorRules@y...
> Subject: [WarriorRules] IRR LTS vs reg Pike / LTS?
>
>
>
> Why was IRR LTS increased in capacity over reg Pike and reg LTS?
>
> I never liked the overall Impetuous rules in 7th but the warrior
rules
> for impetuous LTS looks to be pike killers, going way beyond 7th in
> irregulars over powering pike and reg LTS.
>
> The way I read 9.3, both impetuous and non impetuous LTS chargers
receive
> 2 full ranks able to fight.
>
> reg pike / LTS charge is canceled by impetuous and only able to
fight
> with 2 ranks.
>
> Impetuous LTS takes a -2 hth factor for being non-impetous LTS
facing
> pike / LTS
>
> The LTS gains back +2 for being impetuous and +1 for charging.
>
> For combat the impetuous LTS has a net +1 with the same weapon
factor.
> Even number of fig agtainst pike and more fig against the reg LTS
>
> If the pike lose ( odds are they will ), they become disordered and
take
> -2 for next combat, and again odds are they will lose.
>
> Historically, trained, reg, pike armies or Greek Hopolite armies
did not
> have trouble in a face to face combat with masses of irreg forces.
> Does anyone else see a problem with this?
>
> Canceling of non impetuous inf charges by impetuous inf came with
7th.
> It needs to go away with 7th.
>
> Ed F
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Ed Forbes]

There are close order irregular LTS out there also, so the numbers of fig
are even at an even die roll with these against pike.

I maintain that this imbalance is NOT shown in historical outcomes. The
only ones I know who faced pike straight up and had ANY chance was Rome
and even they turned around and left if a straight up fight was all they
could get. Rome won its battles against pike by taking them in the flank
, not frontaly.
A pike block that is advancing should roll over just about anything in
front of it. The artificial construct of forcing pike to take a charge
by irr rabble at the halt is not born out as history.

In the writings on combat closer in time to us that there is more written
on, reg, trained forces many times opted to take such a charge at the
halt as being in good order counted for more than moving forward. I have
seen examples in Napoleonic cav actions ( not to dissimilar to what we
are trying to recreate ) where French cav opted by order not to counter
charge and received a charge at no faster than a walk in order to keep
boot to boot order, order being more important than speed.

Even this is not born out in the current rules with Pike being even and
reg LTS worse off against imp close order LTS in initial comabt.
Actually, I guess that reg LTS is somewhat better off than pike as they
have a less chance of becoming disordered than Pike, and disorder is
death under the rules. I find it strange that LTS is counted superior to
pike. Rember that pike armies became almost universal because of their
superior ( except against little trained rabble? ) battle field
performance.

Being in good order against an impetuous, unordered charge ( historical
def of order / disorder, not game terms ) gives no game benefit where
historically these ordered troops clearly did have the advantage.


I pose the questions again:
What is the rational for having impetuous chargers preempt and force non
impetuous troops to take a charge at the halt in Warrior or was the
matter even discussed?
Was this issue of irr close LTS V pike and the combat changes in game
terms discussed?

Thanks,

Ed F

[Tim Brown]

Ed,
 
While I can't speak for the guys writing the rules, I can offer an opinion or two. You obviously feel very strongly about this subject matter, so the best way to build your case would be to throughly research it, give written documented examples, and most importantly, determine what you'd like to see in Warrior as a result, keeping in mind that ahistorical opponents meet on a regular basis in our world of minis.  It's one thing to state that a result is incorrect. It's another to come up with a solution and then justify it. Having read most of the posts Jon and the others have made, it just seems like nobody is going to take you seriously unless you can do the above. I'd hate to see another gamer get frustrated and turn away when perhaps he has knowledge to share the rest could use.

-----Original Message-----From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@juno.com]Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:25 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: IRR LTS vs reg Pike / LTS?There are close order irregular LTS out there also, so the numbers of figare even at an even die roll with these against pike.I maintain that this imbalance  is NOT shown in historical outcomes.  Theonly ones I know who faced pike straight up and had ANY chance was Romeand even they turned around and left if a straight up fight was all theycould get.  Rome won its battles against pike by taking them in the flank, not frontaly.A pike block that is advancing should roll over just about anything infront of it.  The artificial construct of forcing pike to take a chargeby irr rabble at the halt is not born out as history.  In the writings on combat closer in time to us that there is more writtenon, reg, trained forces many times opted to take such a charge at thehalt as being in good order counted for more than moving forward.  I haveseen examples in Napoleonic cav actions ( not to dissimilar to what weare trying to recreate ) where  French cav opted by order not to countercharge and received a charge at no faster than a walk in order to keepboot to boot order, order being more important than speed.Even this is not born out in the current rules with Pike being even andreg LTS worse off against imp close order LTS in initial comabt. Actually, I guess that reg LTS is somewhat better off than pike as theyhave a less chance of becoming disordered than Pike,  and disorder isdeath under the rules.  I find it strange that LTS is counted superior topike.  Rember that pike armies became almost universal because of theirsuperior (   except against little trained rabble?    ) battle fieldperformance.Being in good order against an impetuous, unordered charge ( historicaldef of order / disorder, not game terms ) gives no game benefit wherehistorically these ordered troops clearly did have the advantage.I pose the questions again: What is the rational for having impetuous chargers preempt and force nonimpetuous troops to take a charge at the halt  in Warrior or was thematter even discussed? Was this issue of irr close LTS V pike and the combat changes in gameterms discussed?Thanks,Ed FTo unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Ed Forbes]

Tim,

I am in no danger of being frustrated and turning away. Warrior is the
only game in town other than DBM and I have orders of magnitude more
problems with it than 7th / Warrior. I played 7th as written and I will
play Warrior as written. Does not stop me from pointing out holes as I
see them. If you can point out where I am wrong, so much the better and
I gain a better insight on what Warrior is wanting to acomplish.

I keep getting: "This is the way we have always done it" and no other
justification is needed. If you can not get it right for the historical
matchups, how much faith as a game system can you have for out of period
matchups. This is assuming that what is wanted is, at least somewhat in
passing, a simulation. If you do not get historical results, you do not
have a simulation. If, from this you get the impression I would rather
do a simulation than just a game, your right.

This idea that impetuous charges cancel non impetuous charges is a new
concept in the wrg system. It was first put out with 7th, and with very
little justification then. Does Warrior have their own justification or
was it pulled whole cloth from 7th? As this is critical to the game
system, a well thought out answer to this question should not be
considered an unreasonable request.

I am coming to the opinion that no additional amount of historical
research would help. How much more historical than reg pike over ANY
irregular foot is needed. These were contemporary weapon systems and
had seen action against each other over hundreds of years. One has to
search hard for any irr foot beating pike or forcing the pike back in
disorder in almost any situation. To suggest otherwise is silly.

I assume that people actually have thought about each piece that goes
into the rules. My question on unease for SHC, the downgrading of pike
vs irr close LTS OVER AND ABOVE what is in 7th , and impetuous
charges are, in my opinion, reasonable questions.

If these question have not been asked, maybe you should ask why not.

As to offering solutions as you suggest, first one must determine what
exactly is wrong. One first has to agree that a problem truly exists.
If the writers belive that my questions do not address any problems, ie:
what I describe is the actual results that they want, then no solution I
express would be attended to. If, on the other hand, the writers do see
a problem with the results generated, they will attended to it.


Thanks for the input,
Ed F


On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:10:09 -0500 "Brown,Tim" <Tim.Brown@...>
writes:
> Ed,
>
> While I can't speak for the guys writing the rules, I can offer an
> opinion
> or two. You obviously feel very strongly about this subject matter,
> so the
> best way to build your case would be to throughly research it, give
> written
> documented examples, and most importantly, determine what you'd like
> to see
> in Warrior as a result, keeping in mind that ahistorical opponents
> meet on a
> regular basis in our world of minis. It's one thing to state that a
> result
> is incorrect. It's another to come up with a solution and then
> justify it.
> Having read most of the posts Jon and the others have made, it just
> seems
> like nobody is going to take you seriously unless you can do the
> above. I'd
> hate to see another gamer get frustrated and turn away when perhaps
> he has
> knowledge to share the rest could use.
>
>

[joncleaves]

<< One has to search hard for any irr foot beating pike or forcing the pike
back in
disorder in almost any situation. To suggest otherwise is silly. >>


I suggest otherwise. Show me one. Tell me how many guys (roughly) were on
each side. Warrior players tend to run 'units' smaller than they 'were'.

Give me one historian who says 800 drilled pikemen faced 800 barbarians with
spears and won every time.

We are not doing this 'because we've always done it that way', we are doing
this because our research (and almost more impotantly in some cases) WRG's
research tells us it works. Remember what WRG stands for and the credentials
they bring to this issue.
That is what has to be overcome.

DBM sucks for a lot of reasons. #1 is that anyone's history PhD dissertation
can change the rules and the lists.

>
> DBM sucks for a lot of reasons. #1 is that anyone's history PhD
dissertation can change the rules and the lists.

Yes, lets not let knowledge and education interfere with the games
mechanisms. Lets stay with the "shout loudest and it will come"
system :P