Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/11/2003 17:32:57 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
This would still encourage a second rank without allowing them to be so
devastating against good foot that some would say historically held them
off.
Interesting - I must have missed the other parts of this thread. Which foot
is getting beat by L-armed cav that 'shouldn't?

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/11/2003 20:17:14 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
But the idea of Greek hoplites or Macedonian phalangites
being vulnerable to knights seems a bit off.
Good thing they never fought each other - phew....
And the idea of non-
missile Imperial Romans being as bad as they are against cavalry
lancers like Sarmatians seems odd to me too. Admittedly there are
cases of legions being broken by cav like at Magnesia and I couldn't
myself without a lot of work put forth a concrete example of where
they stood up to cav lancers.
Seems and the historical record are often not the same. We are doing our
best to get the Romans as right as we possibly can and this area will get looked
at very closely for exactly the right list rule for the job - our most
imporatnt task between now and Cold Wars.


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

[John Murphy]

Has anyone tried modifying the lance rules as follows.

Allow rank and a half lance, BUT with the following for the second rank
(half-rank) only when fighting against _steady_ _close_-order foot...

Although they may fight at half effect since they have L they lose
impetus fighting over their comrades to the front when hitting a solid
enemy foot formation and hence do NOT count as charging and hence lose
the +1 (and +2 for impetuous) and must use "other cavalry" factors.

This would still encourage a second rank without allowing them to be so
devastating against good foot that some would say historically held them
off.

[Don Coon]

Interesting thoughts here. Do you think merely reducing the back row to
"other cav" and still allowing the charge would take enough of the teeth out
of them? You are hitting the back rank pretty hard, by taking away lances
and charges.

Disclaimer: I am not saying I like or dislike this rule. I am not saying I
want or dont want it. I am merely commenting on the form of the rule and
game effect.

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Murphy" <jjmurphy@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Lance X-RULEES


> Has anyone tried modifying the lance rules as follows.
>
> Allow rank and a half lance, BUT with the following for the second rank
> (half-rank) only when fighting against _steady_ _close_-order foot...
>
> Although they may fight at half effect since they have L they lose
> impetus fighting over their comrades to the front when hitting a solid
> enemy foot formation and hence do NOT count as charging and hence lose
> the +1 (and +2 for impetuous) and must use "other cavalry" factors.
>
> This would still encourage a second rank without allowing them to be so
> devastating against good foot that some would say historically held them
> off.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

Yeah, hitting it pretty hard, but after all only against steady
close-order foot so maybe not a _huge_ overall impact. Against
disordered or loose/open order troops (or other mounted) they still
get all the benefits.

I'm not really sure I like the idea myself. I love knights and
cavalry and the rank and a half has been a lot of fun since it was
adopted. But the idea of Greek hoplites or Macedonian phalangites
being vulnerable to knights seems a bit off. And the idea of non-
missile Imperial Romans being as bad as they are against cavalry
lancers like Sarmatians seems odd to me too. Admittedly there are
cases of legions being broken by cav like at Magnesia and I couldn't
myself without a lot of work put forth a concrete example of where
they stood up to cav lancers. But it just seems like they should
have a nit better of a chance even if they are at a disadvantage.
And the same goes by extrapolation to a lot of other "good" non-
missle close foot.

But it is only put forth as an X-Rule. I will rejoice if we can make
it through a few years without any major rules changes (which this
would be) especially since I don't know the current rules all that
well yet.

John Murphy

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <jjendon@c...> wrote:
> Interesting thoughts here. Do you think merely reducing the back
row to
> "other cav" and still allowing the charge would take enough of the
teeth out
> of them? You are hitting the back rank pretty hard, by taking
away lances
> and charges.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not saying I like or dislike this rule. I am
not saying I
> want or dont want it. I am merely commenting on the form of the
rule and
> game effect.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:30 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Lance X-RULEES
>
>
> > Has anyone tried modifying the lance rules as follows.
> >
> > Allow rank and a half lance, BUT with the following for the
second rank
> > (half-rank) only when fighting against _steady_ _close_-order
foot...
> >
> > Although they may fight at half effect since they have L they
lose
> > impetus fighting over their comrades to the front when hitting a
solid
> > enemy foot formation and hence do NOT count as charging and
hence lose
> > the +1 (and +2 for impetuous) and must use "other cavalry"
factors.
> >
> > This would still encourage a second rank without allowing them
to be so
> > devastating against good foot that some would say historically
held them
> > off.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >

[Greg Regets]

I fall in line with Jon on this issue. I see so many players refuse
to purchase the supporting cast available to Roman Legions, then line
up the legions in a static line, only to find themselves vulnerable
to cavalry.

No offense against anyone intended, but I believe the strength of the
Roman army was flexibility. One should deploy and fight with a
flexible plan to counter the greatest threat, in this case, mounted
lancers.

One might take note that historically, when exposed, the legion had
quite a bit of difficulty with mounted opponents.

Greg

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 9/11/2003 9:16:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> But the idea of Greek hoplites or Macedonian phalangites
> being vulnerable to knights seems a bit off.
> Good thing they never fought each other - phew....
>

But if the Macedonian phalangites are vulnerable, then aren't the Swiss/
Burgundian/ Lowlands pike just as vulnerable? Should they be?
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/12/2003 16:42:19 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:
But if the Macedonian phalangites are vulnerable, then aren't the Swiss/
Burgundian/ Lowlands pike just as vulnerable? Should they be?
Chris
are vulnerable to what? P stops even SHK L on contact (L: 5 @ 5 = 20, P: 8 @
3 = 20) and then, if there isn't some other unit there to help, in bound 2
the SHK get whacked. that isn't my definition of vulnerable....lol
this talk of P-armed blocks being vulnerable to lancers ignores the actual
factors completely. folks do know the L gets a -2 for facing P and the P get a
+1 for facing an impetuous mounted charge, yes?

the L vs P interaction is just where we want it. if it isn't where someone
else wants it, they are not required to play that way and can use any x-rule
they like.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 9/12/2003 5:43:47 PM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
are vulnerable to what? P stops even SHK L on contact (L: 5 @ 5 = 20, P: 8 @
3 = 20) and then, if there isn't some other unit there to help, in bound 2
the SHK get whacked. that isn't my definition of vulnerable....lol
this talk of P-armed blocks being vulnerable to lancers ignores the actual
factors completely. folks do know the L gets a -2 for facing P and the P get
a
+1 for facing an impetuous mounted charge, yes?
Yep. And it makes perfect sense to me. I just noted that if someone found
the macedonian pike to be vulnerable then the medieval versions would be just
as so. I am fine with the numbers as they currently are.
Chris


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