 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
John Murphy Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 5:32 pm Post subject: lances |
 |
|
Hi again. Having recently received the Warrior rules has me thinking
about how to play all my armies again.
I am getting ready to play Early Imperial Romans in Warrior someday
soon. I'm working on a bunch of legions with some Artillery, Auxilia
and Equites.
I took a moment to do some calculations using the HtH tables. There is
a lot to like about HTW HI but...
I was a bit suprised to figure out that without pretty bad luck even
MC armed with L and able to charge in 2 ranks impetuously will break a
Roman legionary unit on the first round unless the Romans are for some
reason 4-deep just to face this threat which only, if not unlucky,
puts off the inevitable (and not for long).
The legions vulnerability to lance charges isn't entirely unexpected.
But having played Maurikian Byzantines and always seeming to
experience the fustration of having close order infantry marched in my
face I am suprised to see how easily this done. I think the reason is
that the legions have no P/LTS, which the Irr D MI levy scum marching
into the face of my Kataphraktoi always have seemed to have.
So am I incorrect in assuming that all non-P/LTS foot are now toast to
cavalry with lances which can (a) manage not to get disordered, (b)
whoop up impetuousity and (c) match up frontage?
So, what is the old veteran's trick for stopping them from achieving
any or all of these?
The legions are too expensive to throw away and losing half of them to
absorb the initial shock probably breaks a command somewhere.
One possibility for the Romans against, say, Sarmatians (or Dacians
with Sarmatian allies, or Parthians) is to have some speed bump troops
to eat lance heads and horse hooves and waste the nuts one good
charge. But I am guessing these need to be expensive enough, and tough
enough, to make the enemy blow the extra fatigue for impetuousity - I
am guesing LI skirmishers are just going to get brushed aside by his
LC. Auxilia would do for this but they are darn near as expensive as
the legions. Another option might be to mix Art in with the legion
units and sit on the defensive. The Roman JLS cavalry is probably
great for some things but doesn't look strong enough or numerous
enough to get anywhere near such an enemy.
My guess is the way to handle this is junk up the board with a bunch
of terrain (and pray it works),max out on Auxilia for fighting in it,
and then hope for the best with the now-infamous "machine-gun LBS" to
protect the HI from getting run over.
Any ideas? I am a stumped newbie. This must be a problem a lot of
armies with non-P/LTS foot have.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
Impetuous lancers are 5@7 against non-missile armed Romans. That's not enough
to break them. You'd have to roll up 2 for that.
Non-missile armed romans typically also come from one of the lists we intend to
have a list rule for that simulates manipular tactics - a preview of this list
rule is in the Fast Warrior roman lists. The lancers push the roman unit back
and then the one behind it replaces it in combat and kills the cav.
Of course, there is also the issue of these romans in your example being not
properly supported by missile troops which is my favorite way of dealing with
pesky lance-armed cav coming near my foot that is not P/LTS armed.
We have been playing with 1.5 rank L for years and hundreds of games now. It
works fine and is one of the smartest things done with the game engine since it
was built.
J
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 933
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
> We have been playing with 1.5 rank L for years and
> hundreds of games now. It works fine and is one of
> the smartest things done with the game engine since
> it was built.
> J
As long as I don't have to rebase on those GD*mned
wedge bases, I agree totally!
Boyd
Who never sends HC into the face of any close order
unless there are other curcumstances that warrant it.
=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.com
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
Imp cav is 5@7 = 30 casualties
HTW receiving a cav charge is 6@3 = 15 casualties.
In an 8 man (1x2) or 10 man (1x3) cohort this is break and route.
In a 12 man cohort (1x4) this is hold, but then the point cost per unit is
in favor of the cav.
Don and I Played many a game EIR vs. Mongols. In which the Mongols broke
the HI HTW but then the second wave of Romans coming from the side (who
passed their waiver because they are B class), abused the Cav. The Romans
were definitely counter-punchers.
Now I face the MIR, MI HTW,D,JLS,Kitchen Sink, D&D guys. My Cav won't go
near'em. Same Point cost as the heavies.
Something to work around with armies of the far east is the 1/2 L,B,SH and
1/2 B,Sh combo. This means that you only get 1/2 as many Lancers as say a
knight army. Good vs. some, bad vs. others.
-PB
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:46:37 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] lances
>
> Impetuous lancers are 5@7 against non-missile armed Romans. That's not enough
> to break them. You'd have to roll up 2 for that.
>
> Non-missile armed romans typically also come from one of the lists we intend
> to have a list rule for that simulates manipular tactics - a preview of this
> list rule is in the Fast Warrior roman lists. The lancers push the roman unit
> back and then the one behind it replaces it in combat and kills the cav.
>
> Of course, there is also the issue of these romans in your example being not
> properly supported by missile troops which is my favorite way of dealing with
> pesky lance-armed cav coming near my foot that is not P/LTS armed.
>
> We have been playing with 1.5 rank L for years and hundreds of games now. It
> works fine and is one of the smartest things done with the game engine since
> it was built.
>
> J
>
>
> 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/
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Re: lances |
 |
|
Which begs the question why your Romans are not in a 2x2 element unit?
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
> Which begs the question why your Romans are not in a 2x2 element unit?
I'll let Don officially answer this, because they are his EIR's. But...
Unofficially, I think it is because of three points.
1. Because when a 2x2 cohort turns to face the cav, you have a 120p frontage
shrinking to a 80p frontage. This makes it harder for the Romans to cover
for the one guy who must turn to hit the cav (remember this is before the
Romans could interpenetrate themselves). WHEN a 1x2 cohort turns to hit the
cav the 3rd cohort can step up and protect his buddy who just turned much
more easily.
2. I could just line up 2 cav vs. his 2x2 formation, with the same break and
route result.
3. Some had posted earlier that the historical Cohort size is best shown by
a 1x2. This may have something to do with it as well.
-PB
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2780 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
As a complete aside, this exact example is why the previous table had
6@3 being 16, not 15, casualties, according to Phil. He didn't want
wedging HC to be able to kill such a legion on even dice.
Patrick wrote:
>
> > Which begs the question why your Romans are not in a 2x2 element unit?
>
> I'll let Don officially answer this, because they are his EIR's. But...
>
> Unofficially, I think it is because of three points.
> 1. Because when a 2x2 cohort turns to face the cav, you have a 120p frontage
> shrinking to a 80p frontage. This makes it harder for the Romans to cover
> for the one guy who must turn to hit the cav (remember this is before the
> Romans could interpenetrate themselves). WHEN a 1x2 cohort turns to hit the
> cav the 3rd cohort can step up and protect his buddy who just turned much
> more easily.
>
> 2. I could just line up 2 cav vs. his 2x2 formation, with the same break and
> route result.
>
> 3. Some had posted earlier that the historical Cohort size is best shown by
> a 1x2. This may have something to do with it as well.
> -PB
>
>
> 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/
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
John Murphy Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
First off let me say I am not contesting a rule that I have used
myself in many tournaments now (complete with the old 1/2 EHC 1/2 HC
L/B/Sh Maurikian Byzantines which really took advantage of this) and
agree is good one. I guess a lot of that rules sour grapes goes on
here but you will not hear a lick of it from me, at least on this
rule.
I <am> looking for tactics advice in overcoming a tough situation
though, and hopefully without resorting to doctoring up an army list
just to deal with it. I am hoping the myriad complexities of the game
are not all answered by how you build your army list(?).
If needed to remove the list-building arguements say, for example, you
are playing Fast Warrior EIR against Sarmatians (an historical
matchup), leaving Parthians aside because they have fewer - and more
expensive - lancers in Fast Warrior. That is pretty much the opposing
forces and situation I am concerned about in a nutshell.
The EIR I am building, and postulating here, likely will be 4E 2 ranks
deep most of the time. At least the HI HTW. Then figure the Auxilia as
4E similarly and the Equites as 2E in a single rank. Either of these
others is probably only worse against L cav than the legions are, and
at pretty much the same or greater expense. Then there's the LBS's.
BTW the EIR, looking at Fast Warrior, do not appear to be one of the
lists getting a manipular replacement rule (and please before anyone
gets on their high horse, this is not an argument that they should -
just a point that the tactic mentioned by someone will not work for
them - sad I have to say that but I guess I have been guilty of that
myself recently).
If I may be so bold to point out, and forgive me John as you obviously
understand all this better than I, what you missed in your original is
that 2 2E L cav can line up on one 4E HI unit.
Cav #1 5 @ 7 = 30, Cav #2 5 @ 7 = 30, total = 60 / 16 Romans = 3 CPF
Romans 12 @ 3 = 30, 15 per enemy Cav unit / 6 = 2 CPF
Same applies for a 2E Roman against a single 2E cav
Romans 3 CPF and double = break and rout
Putting the Romans in a 4-deep column gives them enough inertia to put
off breaking the first round, barring bad luck of course, but they
will still fall back disordered and even against disordered cav
eventually they're goners as the cav follows up disordered close order
foot nearly as well as if they were charging.
If the legions have a second line of units they can use the first to
absorb the charge. But ouch. I am concerned if all those legionaires
break to a horde of Sarmatian or Parthian lancers the counter-punchers
are going to lose the game before they get a chance.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2780 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
rollsup3 wrote:
> I <am> looking for tactics advice in overcoming a tough situation
> though, and hopefully without resorting to doctoring up an army list
> just to deal with it. I am hoping the myriad complexities of the game
> are not all answered by how you build your army list(?).
Well, such is certainly not the case .
> If I may be so bold to point out, and forgive me John as you obviously
> understand all this better than I, what you missed in your original is
> that 2 2E L cav can line up on one 4E HI unit.
>
> Cav #1 5 @ 7 = 30, Cav #2 5 @ 7 = 30, total = 60 / 16 Romans = 3 CPF
> Romans 12 @ 3 = 30, 15 per enemy Cav unit / 6 = 2 CPF
>
> Same applies for a 2E Roman against a single 2E cav
>
> Romans 3 CPF and double = break and rout
All of this is true.
Possible solutions hence have to ensure not getting to this situation in
the first place.
Examples might be:
* shooting in advance, either with auxilia (difficult) or equites
(easier but not as effective). Or with LI skirmishers, which is
effective and easier; you'll lose the LI but the lancers will have to
use their impetuous charge ability, in all likelihood.
* preventing impetuosity: get behind a flank being the most likely,
although against IrrB lancers this may be close to impossible
* attacking C&C: likely that few of the lancers will be on their first
charge opportunity, so will need prompting; if you arrange for several
matchups to occur on the same turn, it is unlikely that there will be
sufficient prompt minuts - prompting irregulars is expensive
* in combination with this, most likely, use of judicious counters. If
the cav are at 160p, you can get out of charge; if they're within 80,
then unless they get prompted you charge *them*.
And so on. But having said all that, sure, it's a losing battle. Reg
HI HTW are (imnsho) hideously point-inefficient. They're excellent
against opposing close foot, but that's about it.
And before Jon points it out, none of this is a big secret; if I'm
preaching to the choir here, someone tell me that I'm not being useful
.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
BTW the EIR, looking at Fast Warrior, do not appear to be one of the
lists getting a manipular replacement rule (and please before anyone
gets on their high horse, this is not an argument that they should -
just a point that the tactic mentioned by someone will not work for
them - sad I have to say that but I guess I have been guilty of that
myself recently).
>They don't because there is no evidence that the "polybian" era
manipular tactical tap dance was still in use.
>At CTA, we ran EIR vs Armenians. Guess what? Romans did just fine.
Yes, the two legionaire units had to "suck up" cataphract charges,
recoiling disordered as a result. But unless the "up" rolls occur, the
legions win out in the long run because a 4 element (16 man) regular
foot unit is simply gonna outlast the 2 element (8 man) SHC unit.
>Obviously this is a FW issue because in a big game, the Armenian player
will have tons of crud to potentially follow up on the legionaires,
spanking their sorry disordered butts in subsequent bounds.
>Which is why FW is proving to breath new life into armies like the
generally hapless EIR.
Scott
List Ho
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2780 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
"Holder, Scott " wrote:
> >At CTA, we ran EIR vs Armenians. Guess what? Romans did just fine.
> Yes, the two legionaire units had to "suck up" cataphract charges,
> recoiling disordered as a result. But unless the "up" rolls occur, the
> legions win out in the long run because a 4 element (16 man) regular
> foot unit is simply gonna outlast the 2 element (8 man) SHC unit.
Yes - oddly enough, for the Romans it is much better to be faced with
cataphracts than HC; the cats are (i) much, much more expensive (what's
a unit of 6 IrrC HC - 73? so 146 to take out a 122-pt 16 man B-class
legion) and (ii) can't expand in follow-up, so either have to come in
one-deep (in which case no rout on contact) or use two units (making the
point investment even huger).
> >Obviously this is a FW issue because in a big game, the Armenian player
> will have tons of crud to potentially follow up on the legionaires,
> spanking their sorry disordered butts in subsequent bounds.
>
> >Which is why FW is proving to breath new life into armies like the
> generally hapless EIR.
Um - FW may be great, but I don't think it helps the EIR against their
HC lancer opponents .
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Re: lances |
 |
|
<<Um - FW may be great, but I don't think it helps the EIR against their HC
lancer opponents .>>
how would you know? beyond the simple math of one theoretical engagement...
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: Re: lances |
 |
|
<<If I may be so bold to point out, and forgive me John as you obviously
understand all this better than I, what you missed in your original is that 2 2E
L cav can line up on one 4E HI unit.>>
I assume you mean me, even though to appear to be talking to someone named
'JoHn'. :)
I did not 'miss' that, of course. As Ewan has pointed out, the investment in
using two cav units to try to beat one 16 fig roman (said cav need to be
impetuous to kill it are paying 50 points in command factors alone) is not 'cost
effective'. Tactically it is worse as now there are two HC units the troops
supporting the legionaires can pick on.
Can two impetuous L armed cav beat a non-missile armed roman alone in the open.
Sure.
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Re: lances |
 |
|
At no time in Warrior is or was 6@3 16. It is and always has been 15.
Let's not confuse the new players please.
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
John Murphy Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Thu May 09, 2002 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: lances |
 |
|
--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I assume you mean me, even though to appear to be talking to someone
named 'JoHn'. :)
Sorry, sincerely. I just noticed the Yahoo Reply box does indeed
indicate the name of the folks you are replying to. I hadn't
previously and was afeared to hit the back button while replying and
have all my long-winded typing zapped into e-never-never land. Of
course I am also nearing that age where the memory and the mind in
general starts to go. And JoHn happens to be how I spell mine which
really makes me dazed and confused.
> Can two impetuous L armed cav beat a non-missile armed roman alone
in the open. Sure.
Never in question I hope, _nor should it be_!
Now that we have settled that, back to the point - what can a newbie
EIR player learn to do about it without making a special anti-lancer
list version (or say in FW vs Sarmatians)? Or is it truly hopeless
without resorting to that?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|