Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Harlan Garrett]

Hello All:
 
I was wondering, why does Warrior (7th Edition) does not distinguish between LC (and LI & LCm) and HLC (and HLI & HLCm).  LC equipped with basic clothes or animal skins loin such as Arab light cavalry and camelry, Numbian warrior mounted on a horse with only animals skins, (and any other mounted LC in the first 1000 years of the game) did not have any armor (in fact I guess they were lucky to have any clothes), but moved very fast verses LC equipped with armor (such as Italian light cavalry and other European light cavalry from the last 250 years of the game), but moved slower than their original counterparts. 
 
Harlan D. Garrett

HarlanG@AirMail.Net (Home)
 
 
PS:  See you all this weekend at the Warrior Tournament in San Antonio.

'N what person could seriously call a fully armoured samurai on
horseback (who would dismount as LHI) LC?

But would this go with the "sargents" ruling, if they were used for
scouting etc = LC, to support HK / EHK etc = MC/HC. And would not
HLC be MC?

Q. What is MC?
A. A target looking for place to cause waver tests.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Harlan D. Garrett" <harlang@a...> wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I was wondering, why does Warrior (7th Edition) does not distinguish
> between LC (and LI & LCm) and HLC (and HLI & HLCm). LC equipped
with
> basic clothes or animal skins loin such as Arab light cavalry and
> camelry, Numbian warrior mounted on a horse with only animals skins,
> (and any other mounted LC in the first 1000 years of the game) did
not
> have any armor (in fact I guess they were lucky to have any
clothes),
> but moved very fast verses LC equipped with armor (such as Italian
light
> cavalry and other European light cavalry from the last 250 years of
the
> game), but moved slower than their original counterparts.
>
> Harlan D. Garrett
> <mailto:HarlanG@A...> HarlanG@A... (Home)
>
>
> PS: See you all this weekend at the Warrior Tournament in San
Antonio.

[joncleaves]

I must say that this both looks like an excellent x-rule AND a possible list
rule for certain lists.

Would anyone like to offer up to Scott which lists/troops this might apply to
in such a case?

Jon

Hello All:
 
I was wondering, why does Warrior (7th Edition) does not distinguish between LC (and LI & LCm) and HLC (and HLI & HLCm).  LC equipped with basic clothes or animal skins loin such as Arab light cavalry and camelry, Numbian warrior mounted on a horse with only animals skins, (and any other mounted LC in the first 1000 years of the game) did not have any armor (in fact I guess they were lucky to have any clothes), but moved very fast verses LC equipped with armor (such as Italian light cavalry and other European light cavalry from the last 250 years of the game), but moved slower than their original counterparts. 
 
Harlan D. Garrett

Not really...the pace of a lightly equipped horse doesn't change that much, even "armoured LC" are generally not wearing that much armour or carrying significant weight. In any event the movement capabilities rae based more on formation (in that LC don't manouvre in the same close ranked units as HC, etc), also remember that movement in games reflects movement of a unit along an acceptable axis, not a maximum movement that could theoretically be achieved. Do you really want LC to be moving at the speed of the fastest paced racehorse? In addition comparisons between units of the first 1000 years and the last 250 are [IMO] fundamentally flawed....they shouldn't be facing each other (although we all accept that in reality gamers being gamers they will), but we don't want the rule mechanisms to assume this as a matter of course, at I don't
 
Cheers
Zip[UK]

[Chris Bump]

Martin,

Interesting, I don't know if the original game was designed as a game that
could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold on it as a game of what
if's. What if Saladin had met Caesar. LC and LI were demonstratably
different between the late middle ages and the armies of antiquity. But I am
one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups dramatically changed mounted
warfare and really made the Cav charge something to be feared. These
arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I understand Jon C. correctly,
even years ago. The rules could be significantly more complex, but at some
point one starts to attain the old days of Empire with a whole book of charts
and modifiers. One of the games strengths is its "elegant simplicity".

Chris

 

 
'N what person could seriously call a fully armoured samurai on horseback (who would dismount as LHI) LC?  [MJ] the person who quantifies by performance and use on the field, rather than by equipment alone [IMO]
LC is more an attitude of mind, and a tactical choice than an equipment issue. But would this go with the "sargents" ruling, if they were used for scouting etc = LC, to support HK / EHK etc = MC/HC.  And would not HLC be MC?  Q. What is MC?  A. A target looking for place to cause waver tests.--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Harlan D. Garrett" <harlang@a...> wrote:> Hello All:>  > I was wondering, why does Warrior (7th Edition) does not distinguish> between LC (and LI & LCm) and HLC (and HLI & HLCm).  LC equipped with> basic clothes or animal skins loin such as Arab light cavalry and> camelry, Numbian warrior mounted on a horse with only animals skins,> (and any other mounted LC in the first 1000 years of the game) did not> have any armor (in fact I guess they were lucky to have any clothes),> but moved very fast verses LC equipped with armor (such as Italian light> cavalry and other European light cavalry from the last 250 years of the> game), but moved slower than their original counterparts.  >  > Harlan D. Garrett>  <mailto:HarlanG@A...> HarlanG@A... (Home)>  >  > PS:  See you all this weekend at the Warrior Tournament in San Antonio.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[scott holder]

'N what person could seriously call a fully armoured samurai on
horseback (who would dismount as LHI) LC?

>They can't, at least not technically within the definitions of such troop
types in Warrior. And any such goof in a Japanese list won't be repeated
since such lists will mostly be derived from the work done by the late Mike
McGinnis in a Spearpoint article (with some help from Jevon Garrett, a
subscriber to this list).

[MJ] the person who quantifies by performance and use on the field, rather
than by equipment alone [IMO]
LC is more an attitude of mind, and a tactical choice than an equipment
issue.

>Thank you. Perfect. Everyone needs to remember that we're more interested in
the effect, not the process. That isn't to say that process isn't important
(I mean if we went to the extreme in ignoring process, we'd be playing DBM)
but that oftentimes wargamers tend to get bogged down in the process. A
wonderful example is the old WWII game of Tractics. Beautiful process game.
But, play some tank-on-tank scenarios and you wonder how the Germans ever beat
the French or how the Americans ever beat the Germans. And I see this
"HLI/HLC/HLCm" as an example of that. "Light" troops served certain functions
and their effects were a result of how they operated, not the fact that some
Italian Condotta crossbowmen on a horse had on more clothing than a Numidian
cavalryman. And that latter troop is a another good example of the
limitations we work with. Every contemporary account of the Numidians speaks
their praises (and battlefield effectiveness) to the heavens. And yet, we all
know that LC JLS, Sh isn't exactly the first choice when you're sitting down
to decide what LC trash army you're gonna play today.

>So, by all means "x-rule" this but I most likely won't be spending time
splitting hairs over LC "armor" when I get around to Feudal Warrior.

>Speaking of which, time for a little ancient and medieval history when it
comes to the development of this game. First, whoever posited that the ends
of our historical spectrum shouldn't be fighting each other is correct and in
some ways, this reinforces Harlan's suggestion regarding "HLI". Everyone
should remember that prior to 1980, any "medieval" game *was" separate from
"ancients". Now I can't put myself in Phil's mindset but in 1980, he
"expanded" WRG upon publication of 6th edition to include armies from the
medieval period. I do remember the outcry when that occurred, specifically
because of things like armor differences among supposedly the same troop
types, etc. And it's no real suprise that we've seen more recent efforts to
again split the periods into something distinctive (Terry Gore's Medieval
Warfare as a case in point). But, 20+ years later and it's now part of our
gaming mentality. And I can say that during most of the 90s, you didn't see
any great outpouring of medieval tournament gamers--those that stuck with it
liked the period more than let's say thinking they could roll over opponents
with the armies (some did but that was a player thing, not an army thing).

>But, as I work on army lists, I understand how the whole concept of "one set
of rules covering 5000 years" got started and survives. Basically, you simply
look at things within the context of a single historical period. I mean when
working on army lists, I'm not concerned with how the Andalusians "compare" to
Early Hebrews, I'm concerned with how they "compare" to their contemporaries.
And if you do that in the post-ancients period (let's say after 1350 AD),
suddenly, the rules from the earlier period work just fine and obviously the
temptation is then to simply apply said rules to the other periods. I mean
the LC is relatively LC to contemporaries and more importantly, the *effect*
LC has is no different from the *effect* it had in the pre-medieval period,
for example. So, trying to differentiate between "late LC" and "early LC"
runs counter to some fundamental principles of the game (of course if you want
to question those, that's certainly good grist for another debate).

>There has always been a certain amount of "willing supsension of disbelief"
in what we do (at least by us, our approach is generally scorned by others who
think we engage is something one step short of fantasy gaming), that's a
given. My attitude is that changing some procedural issues (particuarly at
the end of the 5000 years) in order to technically account for their
differences at the early ends of the spectrum, we fundamentally change the
effect.

>This is why I'm a big proponent of historical games. I mean don't get me
wrong, I love nothing more than playing (and seeing) some of the oddest
combinations on the table (at Nashcon we had Incas vs Khmer, at least they
were marginally contemporary). But I also feel that it's impossible to
*really* fit all the separate periods together with the same set of rules
without one or two oddities fitting in.

>So much for a quiet list. An update on army lists. Biblical Warrior is
done. I'm simply waiting on a drop dead submission date for publication in
time for Hcon. In the meantime, I have one proofreader who may or may not
finish proofing the thing (lord knows it's been read and reread over the last
6 months). Dark Age Warrior is progressing nicely (finally). I just finished
#25) Muslim Africa/Sicily last night. Dark Age Warrior will have 36 armies so
I'm in the home stretch. This time I will have copies of it in the hands of
the people "helping" much earlier in the process and am hoping we'll have it
ready for Fall In. The game plan after that is to start working on either
Holy Warrior or Feudal Warrior. It will really depend on what mood I'm in.
But both of those books will be done one after the other before moving onto
Imperial Warrior. But the latter book is at least one year down the road.

Scott
List and Gaming Philosophy Ho

[scott holder]

One of the games strengths is its "elegant simplicity".

>Heh heh, when was this? The "good old days" weren't I grew up on 5th
edition and there was nothing elegant or simple about it. Everyone wanted to
tee off charges on a unit's CORNER so that no one could fight back, the games
devolved into nothing more than a "player vs umpire" match where the shrieking
lawyers would attempt to browbeat an umpire into letting him (the shrieking
lawyer) get away with the most preposterous tabletop stuff.

>Of course, I do gotta admit that I still pigeonhole the medieval period as
something different from ancients and probably always will despite the
arguments I made to the contrary in my other (lengthy) post.

Scott
List Ho

 

 
Martin,Interesting, I don't know if the original game was designed as a game that could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold on it as a game of what if's.  What if Saladin had met Caesar.  LC and LI were demonstratably different between the late middle ages and the armies of antiquity.  But I am one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups dramatically changed mounted  warfare and really made the Cav charge something to be feared.  These arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I understand Jon C. correctly, even years ago.  The rules could be significantly more complex, but at some point one starts to attain the old days of Empire with a whole book of charts and modifiers.  One of the games strengths is its "elegant simplicity".Chris
 
Chris,
 
Whether it was "designed" to cover millenia is a moot point/question. it certainly is the case that WRG xth edition certainly proclaimed to cover the full gamut (although I seem to remember from my dim and murky youth that 3rd, 4th didn't push the later envelope quite as much. What if IMO is central to the genre of wargames, but I tend to be happier with what ifs that fall in similar (smaller?) time periods, what if Alexander faced the Han, etc. Move too far out of period and all you seem to end up doing is trying to fight with outmoded equipment against an army devised to beat you (it's called an arms-race  ). The equipment/technology/tactical changes are more subtle/better concealed (less evidence/knowledge is part of this) than for later periods, but essentially taking Hoplites against feudal knights is akin to saying what if Napoleon had fought the Somme...answer they'd have been machine gunned in column. Strategy and tactics change with time, army composition (and troop type classification) is an integral part of that development - just because it's pre gunpowder doesn't make it all the same.
 
As such  yes stirrups changed the nature of Cavalry/mounted warfare, in that it opens new options, increased stability. The focus of mounted warfare changes from one of missile skirmish/attrition and close combat charge to full on close combat charge with loads and loads of intimidation. That doesn't change the fact that lacking stirrups is actually better for earlier forms of mounted combat. things changed, yes...it is perceptual/subjective as to whether the result is quantifiably "better".
 
All arguments have been made...I doubt any of us can genuinely come up with something really genuine, the fun is in the trying and expanding our individual knowledge  
 
Martin 

[Greg Regets]

Actually, this idea was presented in a posting some time ago concerning the
point system. We did this in a campaign in 7th, and it didn't seem to be a
big deal as far as game balance goes.

HLC - marched 4 instead of five, one factor better against "other cavalry"
weapons, cost was the same.

HLI - marched three instead of four, one factor better against "other
infantry" weapons as well as the "JLS,D,B" catagory for missile, cost was
one point per stand.

Thanks ... G
















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/

 

 
  'N what person could seriously call a fully armoured samurai on  horseback (who would dismount as LHI) LC?>They can't, at least not technically within the definitions of such trooptypes in Warrior.  And any such goof in a Japanese list won't be repeatedsince such lists will mostly be derived from the work done by the late MikeMcGinnis in a Spearpoint article (with some help from Jevon Garrett, asubscriber to this list).  [MJ] the person who quantifies by performance and use on the field, ratherthan by equipment alone [IMO]  LC is more an attitude of mind, and a tactical choice than an equipmentissue.>Thank you. Perfect.  [MJ] Why thank you good sir!
 Everyone needs to remember that we're more interested inthe effect, not the process.  That isn't to say that process isn't important(I mean if we went to the extreme in ignoring process, we'd be playing DBM)but that oftentimes wargamers tend to get bogged down in the process.  Awonderful example is the old WWII game of Tractics.  Beautiful process game. But, play some tank-on-tank scenarios and you wonder how the Germans ever beatthe French or how the Americans ever beat the Germans.  And I see this"HLI/HLC/HLCm" as an example of that.  "Light" troops served certain functionsand their effects were a result of how they operated, not the fact that someItalian Condotta crossbowmen on a horse had on more clothing than a Numidiancavalryman.  And that latter troop is a another good example of thelimitations we work with.  Every contemporary account of the Numidians speakstheir praises (and battlefield effectiveness) to the heavens.  And yet, we allknow that LC JLS, Sh isn't exactly the first choice when you're sitting downto decide what LC trash army you're gonna play today.>So, by all means "x-rule" this but I most likely won't be spending timesplitting hairs over LC "armor" when I get around to Feudal Warrior.>Speaking of which, time for a little ancient and medieval history when itcomes to the development of this game.  First, whoever posited that the endsof our historical spectrum shouldn't be fighting each other is correct[MJ] err me again I think
 and insome ways, this reinforces Harlan's suggestion regarding "HLI".  Everyoneshould remember that prior to 1980, any "medieval" game *was" separate from"ancients".  Now I can't put myself in Phil's mindset but in 1980, he"expanded" WRG upon publication of 6th edition to include armies from themedieval period.  I do remember the outcry when that occurred, specificallybecause of things like armor differences among supposedly the same trooptypes, etc.  And it's no real suprise that we've seen more recent efforts toagain split the periods into something distinctive (Terry Gore's MedievalWarfare as a case in point).  But, 20+ years later and it's now part of ourgaming mentality.  And I can say that during most of the 90s, you didn't seeany great outpouring of medieval tournament gamers--those that stuck with itliked the period more than let's say thinking they could roll over opponentswith the armies (some did but that was a player thing, not an army thing).>But, as I work on army lists, I understand how the whole concept of "one setof rules covering 5000 years" got started and survives.  Basically, you simplylook at things within the context of a single historical period.  I mean whenworking on army lists, I'm not concerned with how the Andalusians "compare" toEarly Hebrews, I'm concerned with how they "compare" to their contemporaries. And if you do that in the post-ancients period (let's say after 1350 AD),suddenly, the rules from the earlier period work just fine and obviously thetemptation is then to simply apply said rules to the other periods.  I meanthe LC is relatively LC to contemporaries and more importantly, the *effect*LC has is no different from the *effect* it had in the pre-medieval period,for example.  So, trying to differentiate between "late LC" and "early LC"runs counter to some fundamental principles of the game (of course if you wantto question those, that's certainly good grist for another debate).[MJ] I think you've summed up the reasoning quite nicely in fact. The LC is relative to LC on a contemporary basis in its effect - if its viwed by contemporaries as LC then it probably is!
[MJ] it's an oddity but ancients is really the only period where the absence of a technology (ie pre gunpowder) seems to be the driving factor in deciding the cut off point. While other genres accept similarities, players demand that the nuances of Napoleonics be brought out or the nuances of ACW, or Marlborough, etc. the goal almsot seems to be to highlight the differences, in ancients (at least in the hands of WRG) the goal seems to have been the opposite.
[MJ] thinking on that maybe it is a WRG concept thing - rules for 1685 to 18??, and didn't they do a modern set from WW1 onwards - against the grain of most rules authors/players for the majority of periods. Possibly just shows just how much ancients as a period is dominated by the thinking of small group (not that I'm deriding here, I think the overall focus has mostly been healthy, just overbalancing) >There has always been a certain amount of "willing supsension of disbelief"in what we do (at least by us, our approach is generally scorned by others whothink we engage is something one step short of fantasy gaming),[MJ] not that there's anything wrong with fantasy?
  that's agiven.  My attitude is that changing some procedural issues (particuarly atthe end of the 5000 years) in order to technically account for theirdifferences at the early ends of the spectrum, we fundamentally change theeffect.>This is why I'm a big proponent of historical games.  I mean don't get mewrong, I love nothing more than playing (and seeing) some of the oddestcombinations on the table (at Nashcon we had Incas vs Khmer, at least theywere marginally contemporary).  But I also feel that it's impossible to*really* fit all the separate periods together with the same set of ruleswithout one or two oddities fitting in.>So much for a quiet list.  An update on army lists.  Biblical Warrior isdone.  I'm simply waiting on a drop dead submission date for publication intime for Hcon.  In the meantime, I have one proofreader who may or may notfinish proofing the thing (lord knows it's been read and reread over the last6 months).  Dark Age Warrior is progressing nicely (finally).  I just finished#25) Muslim Africa/Sicily last night.  Dark Age Warrior will have 36 armies soI'm in the home stretch.  This time I will have copies of it in the hands ofthe people "helping" much earlier in the process and am hoping we'll have itready for Fall In.  The game plan after that is to start working on eitherHoly Warrior or Feudal Warrior.  It will really depend on what mood I'm in. But both of those books will be done one after the other before moving ontoImperial Warrior.  But the latter book is at least one year down the road.ScottList and Gaming Philosophy Ho                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

 

 One of the games strengths is its "elegant simplicity".>Heh heh, when was this?  The "good old days" weren't  I grew up on 5thedition and there was nothing elegant or simple about it.  Everyone wanted totee off charges on a unit's CORNER so that no one could fight back, the gamesdevolved into nothing more than a "player vs umpire" match where the shriekinglawyers would attempt to browbeat an umpire into letting him (the shriekinglawyer) get away with the most preposterous tabletop stuff.[MJ] yeah like nothing will change this, people are people. ya just gotta have faith and pick your friends/opponents. of course if you engage in competitions you take the luck of the draw >Of course, I do gotta admit that I still pigeonhole the medieval period assomething different from ancients and probably always will despite thearguments I made to the contrary in my other (lengthy) post.[MJ] I'd go a bit further and split things down into broader spheres (without hard lines - everything blurs at the edges) but biblical against imperial is just as jarring and "different". Yeah sure it can be fun and no harm, but expect it to be a bit flaky...oddities will crop up. Go in with eyes open, don't expect your Galatian fanatics to be able to deal with Late medieval SHK. Like most things it's the expectation that's the kicker when it doesn't pan out  ScottList Ho                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

<<By the way, we had a tournament this past weekend and noticed that the way
the JLS is written, it now gets a second rank, even if the bonus for JLS
does not apply. Is this a typo, or is it more of the arms race?>>

I'll check this as I finish the Historicon draft this week.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Chris,
Anna Commena in the Alexiad wrote that the
Frankish/Norman cav were so irresistable in their
charge against Byzantine cavalry not because of
stirrups (the Byzantines also had this invention) but
because of the fact that the "Franks" used spurs! How
would this be handled as an "x" rule?
Kelly Wilkinson



--- cncbump@... wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Interesting, I don't know if the original game was
> designed as a game that
> could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold on
> it as a game of what
> if's. What if Saladin had met Caesar. LC and LI
> were demonstratably
> different between the late middle ages and the
> armies of antiquity. But I am
> one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups
> dramatically changed mounted
> warfare and really made the Cav charge something to
> be feared. These
> arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I
> understand Jon C. correctly,
> even years ago. The rules could be significantly
> more complex, but at some
> point one starts to attain the old days of Empire
> with a whole book of charts
> and modifiers. One of the games strengths is its
> "elegant simplicity".
>
> Chris
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/

[Greg Regets]

I think the Horsemen are too far along at this point to even adress these
issues. Clearly this could be done as list rules, but exactly how many list
rules do we expect and how will this be viewed by new players that not only
have to know the lists, but also the list rules in order to play.

I have always thought that no matter how many types of armor or weapons a
set had, it did not increase complexity, as most armies would in fact only
be using a few. In the large campaign we did we had ten additional weapons,
and at least a half dozen additional types of armor added to the factor
chart, with absolutely no effect on the mechanics of the game.

By the way, we had a tournament this past weekend and noticed that the way
the JLS is written, it now gets a second rank, even if the bonus for JLS
does not apply. Is this a typo, or is it more of the arms race?

Take care .... Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:26 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] LC and HLC


Chris,
Anna Commena in the Alexiad wrote that the
Frankish/Norman cav were so irresistable in their
charge against Byzantine cavalry not because of
stirrups (the Byzantines also had this invention) but
because of the fact that the "Franks" used spurs! How
would this be handled as an "x" rule?
Kelly Wilkinson



--- cncbump@... wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Interesting, I don't know if the original game was
> designed as a game that
> could cover a milenium, or rather, as I was sold on
> it as a game of what
> if's. What if Saladin had met Caesar. LC and LI
> were demonstratably
> different between the late middle ages and the
> armies of antiquity. But I am
> one of the Kooks who thinks that stirrups
> dramatically changed mounted
> warfare and really made the Cav charge something to
> be feared. These
> arguments were all made months ago, perhaps if I
> understand Jon C. correctly,
> even years ago. The rules could be significantly
> more complex, but at some
> point one starts to attain the old days of Empire
> with a whole book of charts
> and modifiers. One of the games strengths is its
> "elegant simplicity".
>
> Chris
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/

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/