Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After crunching in with
the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a recoiled, perhaps
disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that situation in games
I've played ... admittedly all under TOG.

I'm not a big fan of the fact that HI HTW,Sh rip a new hole for regular LTS
-- usually in one bound. I have a hard time with the fact that the legions of
Trajan and Caesar would get their butts kicked by the armorless swiss-army
knife later imperial legions.

But I've never thought, "Gee, Romans need some special rules to make them a
lot better."

Maybe I misunderstood the point of the message.

John Meunier


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

[Doug]

>I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After crunching in with
>the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a recoiled, perhaps
>disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that situation in games
>I've played ... admittedly all under TOG.
>John Meunier

Maybe some number crunching is in order. I suppose we could think of
the initial high factor for the Romans as being supurb swordsmanship
instead of pila. If then they have an advantage that can't be
overcome, then the factors just need to add up so the enemy has the
'correct' amount of staying power before being overcome.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 5/29/02 2:37:45 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After crunching in
with
the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a recoiled, perhaps
disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that situation in games
I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>

'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries do fine against infantry,
as I said . Their problem in all Barker based sets is their vulnerability to
attack cav, which is why Caesar has such a terrible record in tournaments.
(As another contributor to this List very perceptibly asked - name ONE
example, out of all Ancient history, where cavalry rode down infantry
frontally. It was very rare.)
However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans roll
down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal
footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of 'gladius' rule
for ongoing combat.

[scott holder]

John M wrote: I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After
crunching in with the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a
recoiled, perhaps disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that
situation in games I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>

And Tom M replied: 'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries do
fine against infantry, as I said . Their problem in all Barker based
sets is their vulnerability to attack cav, which is why Caesar has such
a terrible record in tournaments. (As another contributor to this List
very perceptibly asked - name ONE example, out of all Ancient history,
where cavalry rode down infantry frontally. It was very rare.)
However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans
roll
down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal

footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of 'gladius'
rule
for ongoing combat.

>I'm gonna be all over the map here so bear with me. First, I agree
with Tom that stereotypical (not MIR and LIR or even Patsy, oops,
Patricians) legionaires do fine against foot, the design system works
fine. It "seemingly" falls apart vs cav but........I also think that's
the design system's goal. Now, having said that, I also think the
design system potentially suffers in this case from trying to apply one
single model to 5000 years of military history, all it an occupational
hazard.

>But, that's only half the story. I don't agree about a "gladius" rule
for stereotypical legionaires vs cav, the battle accounts just don't
suggest the horsies plowed into the hapless legionaires only to be
hacked to pieces in the ensuing carnage (I remain to be corrected on
this, please). But, it's pretty clear that as the Romans encountered
more and more predominantly shock cav armies (instead of the Gallic and
Italian trash they made their reputation on), they instituted certain
"reforms" in order to meet this threat.

>See my other email about the move from the manipular to the cohortal
system. One reason modern commentators feel this occurred was that
those teeny maniples were simply too easy to overwhelm piece by piece,
even by foreeeen infantry-based armies. A second reason (according to
same modern commentators) was that shock cav could pretty much do the
same thing. Therefore, according to this school of thought, the Romans
beefed up their organization (safety in numbers) in order to counter
this threat. Furthermore, during the EIR period, the first cohort in a
legion was made a "super" cohort by doubling it's size and presumably,
this was the cohort that would be out there ready to suck up those cav
charges with the full knowledge that it was large enough to not take 1
CPF (since everything needs to be in WARRIOR terms, heh heh). Nothing
was done vis a vis "skill training" to enable a single legionaire to
better beat up cavalry. And if Arrian's accounts are to be trusted,
it's obvious that Roman field commanders were *still* in a quandary
during the second century AD about how to deal with with shock cav in
the open. More on this in a minute.

>Also please keep in mind that Marius' reforms were also largely
institutional and not designed to specifically change the basic way a
legionaire fought, whether he was some small landowner (virtually
non-existent in Marius' day) or one of the landless mob he recruited in
Rome. Therefore, I still feel the the system was/is designed to make it
difficult for legionaires (and "unarmored schlubs", I like that term) to
stand up to cav charges at least in terms of impact and assuming the
infantry hasn't tried to do something "special" in terms of formation(s)
in order to counter the cav. It's either that or some skill or
technical counter which wasn't apparently done in the case of Rome. As
I've been delving more into the feudal nature of the game and the issues
surrounding 2HCT, I see more and more of this, i.e., cavalry outpacing
infantry in terms of impact power and countermeasures taken by infantry
in attempt to level the playing field (so to speak). But......as I
mentioned earlier, this is only half the story.

>It is clear that at least Arrian concocted some type of formation that
"scared off" potential cav charges. I've been giving this tons of
thought since it was broached a month ago and yes, you can expect a list
rule of some ilk to be forthcoming, particularly for playtesting prior
to actual list publication. I still want to bounce the specifics off of
a few people prior to sharing. Yes, some people might see this as a
"band aid" and a failing of the rule system itself. Obviously I would
beg to differ in that summary. I always felt the failing was that we
tried to template one system in such a way that didn't take into account
very real "exceptions" to the template. So we'll see where this goes.

>I'll have more on this and on the whole 2HCT issue in a couple of
weeks.

Scott
List Ho

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quahog25@... [mailto:Quahog25@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:02 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules]legionaries weak?
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/29/02 2:37:45 AM,
> WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> << I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After
> crunching in
> with
> the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a recoiled, perhaps
> disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that situation in games
> I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>
>
> 'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries do fine
> against infantry,
> as I said . Their problem in all Barker based sets is their
> vulnerability to
> attack cav, which is why Caesar has such a terrible record in
> tournaments.
> (As another contributor to this List very perceptibly asked - name ONE
> example, out of all Ancient history, where cavalry rode down infantry
> frontally. It was very rare.)
> However, I think what was being referred to was that if the
> Romans roll
> down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal
> footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
> accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of
> 'gladius' rule
> for ongoing combat.
>
>


Well, if you roll down 2 and the opponent rolls up at the start of the
melee, it's just not your day. The gods are not smiling on you, etc. The
gods give your men gifts, and if they don't want to use them.......
I don't like the idea of "These guys are special because they are
Romans....or Spartans....or Samurai....or British in the Penninsula type
rules. In period, maybe, but not out of period.




>
> 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/
>
>
>

>> However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans roll

>>down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal
>>footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
>>accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of 'gladius'
rule
>>for ongoing combat.

Doesn't the rule that allows troops armed with HTW to always fight in 1.5
ranks even after being reduced to using SA give them that advantage? All
else being equal 6 Legionairres w/SA (HTW, Sh in 2nd round) against 4 HYW LB
w/SA... you have to think the side doing 50% more casualties has an edge.




-----Original Message-----
From: Quahog25@... [mailto:Quahog25@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:02 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules]legionaries weak?



In a message dated 5/29/02 2:37:45 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After crunching in
with
the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a recoiled, perhaps
disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that situation in games
I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>

'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries do fine against
infantry,
as I said . Their problem in all Barker based sets is their vulnerability to

attack cav, which is why Caesar has such a terrible record in tournaments.
(As another contributor to this List very perceptibly asked - name ONE
example, out of all Ancient history, where cavalry rode down infantry
frontally. It was very rare.)
However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans roll
down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal
footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of 'gladius' rule

for ongoing combat.



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/

[scott holder]

Doesn't the rule that allows troops armed with HTW to always fight in
1.5
ranks even after being reduced to using SA give them that advantage?
All
else being equal 6 Legionairres w/SA (HTW, Sh in 2nd round) against 4
HYW LB
w/SA... you have to think the side doing 50% more casualties has an
edge.

>Correct. Those extra two guys are a bonus, again assuming no big die
rolls one way or the other or overlap, etc.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

My problem with this issue is that when we look at the Romans, we are looking at
one part, granted a large part, of what was a military system.

If you use high moral LI that can pass waver test from being charged by mounted,
legionary artillery, run your legions in small units and mix in some smelly old
camels to disorder cavalry, you will be fine.

The biggest problem I see with most Roman players is they buy a zillion
legionaries and auxila, and pass on all the good stuff that makes the army
unique.

Greg


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

I have two main problems with the original premise that Roman
Legionaries are weak :
1/. In 'real' life they didn't win every battle, let alone every combat
(The 'Random' factor) and
2/. The example given is fighting an enemy that is about 1000 years
later than they are.
As Scott says, the Roman army in arms,organisation and tactics, evolved
over the years to deal with the predominant enemy faced. The main enemy
in the Punic Wars was different to the main enemy faced by Ceasar, which
was different to the main enemy faced by the army at the end of the
Empire. All through it's life it adapted to threats, the heavily
armoured infantry during the Dacian Wars spring to mind. Consequently,
if it had faced the HYW army on a regular basis, it would have evolved
tactics/arms to combat it. Also, for the earlier armies at least, the
replacing lines list rule, reflects, not only a historical tactic, but
would also take out the worry about SA armed troops. This is a major
change from TOG. The later Imperial army dropped the HTW in favour of a
spear, because they were facing more cavalry and the HTW wasn't as
effective against cavalry as the spear. Someone (I can't remember who -
Sorry whoever it was, it was a good point) posted, about the later
Lancea being possibly akin to LTS rather than JLS - a problem with
weapon definitions, which will never be solved unless each individual
weapon is rated, and nobody wants that !! Simple is better than
complicated !!
I can only suggest that a few games of WARRIOR are played to see if it
suits, rather than, once again, comparing it to TOG, which everyone
knows had faults, which is why WARRIOR is here. If TOG was perfect it
would still be played, rather than the letters game.

Keep it up lads.

Les.

"Holder, Scott " wrote:

> John M wrote: I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak?
> After
> crunching in with the HTW the first bound, they often are following up
> a
> recoiled, perhaps disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in
> that
> situation in games I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>
>
> And Tom M replied: 'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries
> do
> fine against infantry, as I said . Their problem in all Barker based
> sets is their vulnerability to attack cav, which is why Caesar has
> such
> a terrible record in tournaments. (As another contributor to this List
>
> very perceptibly asked - name ONE example, out of all Ancient history,
>
> where cavalry rode down infantry frontally. It was very rare.)
> However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans
> roll
> down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an
> equal
>
> footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
> accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of
> 'gladius'
> rule
> for ongoing combat.
>
> >I'm gonna be all over the map here so bear with me. First, I agree
> with Tom that stereotypical (not MIR and LIR or even Patsy, oops,
> Patricians) legionaires do fine against foot, the design system works
> fine. It "seemingly" falls apart vs cav but........I also think
> that's
> the design system's goal. Now, having said that, I also think the
> design system potentially suffers in this case from trying to apply
> one
> single model to 5000 years of military history, all it an occupational
>
> hazard.
>
> >But, that's only half the story. I don't agree about a "gladius"
> rule
> for stereotypical legionaires vs cav, the battle accounts just don't
> suggest the horsies plowed into the hapless legionaires only to be
> hacked to pieces in the ensuing carnage (I remain to be corrected on
> this, please). But, it's pretty clear that as the Romans encountered
>
> more and more predominantly shock cav armies (instead of the Gallic
> and
> Italian trash they made their reputation on), they instituted certain
> "reforms" in order to meet this threat.
>
> >See my other email about the move from the manipular to the cohortal
> system. One reason modern commentators feel this occurred was that
> those teeny maniples were simply too easy to overwhelm piece by piece,
>
> even by foreeeen infantry-based armies. A second reason (according to
>
> same modern commentators) was that shock cav could pretty much do the
> same thing. Therefore, according to this school of thought, the
> Romans
> beefed up their organization (safety in numbers) in order to counter
> this threat. Furthermore, during the EIR period, the first cohort in
> a
> legion was made a "super" cohort by doubling it's size and presumably,
>
> this was the cohort that would be out there ready to suck up those cav
>
> charges with the full knowledge that it was large enough to not take 1
>
> CPF (since everything needs to be in WARRIOR terms, heh heh). Nothing
>
> was done vis a vis "skill training" to enable a single legionaire to
> better beat up cavalry. And if Arrian's accounts are to be trusted,
> it's obvious that Roman field commanders were *still* in a quandary
> during the second century AD about how to deal with with shock cav in
> the open. More on this in a minute.
>
> >Also please keep in mind that Marius' reforms were also largely
> institutional and not designed to specifically change the basic way a
> legionaire fought, whether he was some small landowner (virtually
> non-existent in Marius' day) or one of the landless mob he recruited
> in
> Rome. Therefore, I still feel the the system was/is designed to make
> it
> difficult for legionaires (and "unarmored schlubs", I like that term)
> to
> stand up to cav charges at least in terms of impact and assuming the
> infantry hasn't tried to do something "special" in terms of
> formation(s)
> in order to counter the cav. It's either that or some skill or
> technical counter which wasn't apparently done in the case of Rome.
> As
> I've been delving more into the feudal nature of the game and the
> issues
> surrounding 2HCT, I see more and more of this, i.e., cavalry outpacing
>
> infantry in terms of impact power and countermeasures taken by
> infantry
> in attempt to level the playing field (so to speak). But......as I
> mentioned earlier, this is only half the story.
>
> >It is clear that at least Arrian concocted some type of formation
> that
> "scared off" potential cav charges. I've been giving this tons of
> thought since it was broached a month ago and yes, you can expect a
> list
> rule of some ilk to be forthcoming, particularly for playtesting prior
>
> to actual list publication. I still want to bounce the specifics off
> of
> a few people prior to sharing. Yes, some people might see this as a
> "band aid" and a failing of the rule system itself. Obviously I would
>
> beg to differ in that summary. I always felt the failing was that we
> tried to template one system in such a way that didn't take into
> account
> very real "exceptions" to the template. So we'll see where this goes.
>
> >I'll have more on this and on the whole 2HCT issue in a couple of
> weeks.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Rumble [mailto:l.rumble@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules]legionaries weak?
>
>
> I have two main problems with the original premise that Roman
> Legionaries are weak :
> 1/. In 'real' life they didn't win every battle, let alone every combat
> (The 'Random' factor)
> >

Nor should they in the game. Too many beginning wargamers seem to think
that if their favorite Uber troop does not win all the time then the rules
are not "realistic."
What are Spartacus, Hannibal, Surenna and Arriminius famous for? Beating
Romans. Good for them.

John Carroll

[scott holder]

Nor should they in the game. Too many beginning wargamers seem to think
that if their favorite Uber troop does not win all the time then the
rules
are not "realistic."
What are Spartacus, Hannibal, Surenna and Arriminius famous for?
Beating
Romans. Good for them.

>Also, as was pointed out earlier, setup an historical scenario without
a time limit and see what happens. Using tournament play as a context
will definitely skew one's view of the world.

>Also, one thing that gets left out of these discussions is the quality
of generalship. One reason a guy like Marius succeeded (and then Sulla
after him and Julius Ceaser after him) was that he was a good general
and most of his Roman contemporaries sucked hind tit. Whereas "Consul
A" gets the absolute crap beat outta him in one battle and Marius chugs
along several years later and more or less reverses the outcome, says
something about his generalship, or luck:) That and they didn't
play to a time limit:):)

Scott
List Ho

When the Romans found themselves being faced by increasing numbers of
good battlefield cavalry they changed the balance of their armament
to more spears and missile weaponry as far as I can see. They did not
train harder to gain a plus one as swordsmen. :-)

If you want to fight good cavalry armies in competitions using the
Roman army that faced similar opponents would seem to be the best bet.

Throwing down two on the dice just shows that the company cook has
poisoned the breakfast or the legions favourite sageant has just
tripped and broke his neck. Those small things that take the heart
out of a unit in real life.

Adam

[scott holder]

When the Romans found themselves being faced by increasing numbers of
good battlefield cavalry they changed the balance of their armament
to more spears and missile weaponry as far as I can see. They did not
train harder to gain a plus one as swordsmen. :-)

>That's certainly the conclusion I've come to. Again, there's some
evidence that they tried to adopt a formation (again, Arrian) that was
essentially a hedgehog of grounded pila and javelins but as you said,
there is nothing to indicate they specifically trained legionaires to
"fight" cav.

And another disertion
----- Original Message -----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA>
To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules]legionaries weak?


John M wrote: I'm confused by this talk of legionaries being weak? After
crunching in with the HTW the first bound, they often are following up a
recoiled, perhaps disordered enemy. The swordsmen do pretty good in that
situation in games I've played ... admittedly all under TOG. >>

And Tom M replied: 'Often', but not always. Yes, i think legionaries do
fine against infantry, as I said . Their problem in all Barker based
sets is their vulnerability to attack cav, which is why Caesar has such
a terrible record in tournaments. (As another contributor to this List
very perceptibly asked - name ONE example, out of all Ancient history,
where cavalry rode down infantry frontally. It was very rare.)
However, I think what was being referred to was that if the Romans
roll
down 2 , or opponents up, in the charge, then the Romans are on an equal

footing with unarmed shlubs for the rest of the melee. This is not an
accurate representation, hence the suggestion of some sort of 'gladius'
rule
for ongoing combat.

>I'm gonna be all over the map here so bear with me. First, I agree
with Tom that stereotypical (not MIR and LIR or even Patsy, oops,
Patricians) legionaires do fine against foot, the design system works
fine. It "seemingly" falls apart vs cav but........I also think that's
the design system's goal. Now, having said that, I also think the
design system potentially suffers in this case from trying to apply one
single model to 5000 years of military history, all it an occupational
hazard.

>But, that's only half the story. I don't agree about a "gladius" rule
for stereotypical legionaires vs cav, the battle accounts just don't
suggest the horsies plowed into the hapless legionaires only to be
hacked to pieces in the ensuing carnage (I remain to be corrected on
this, please). But, it's pretty clear that as the Romans encountered
more and more predominantly shock cav armies (instead of the Gallic and
Italian trash they made their reputation on), they instituted certain
"reforms" in order to meet this threat.

>See my other email about the move from the manipular to the cohortal
system. One reason modern commentators feel this occurred was that
those teeny maniples were simply too easy to overwhelm piece by piece,
even by foreeeen infantry-based armies. A second reason (according to
same modern commentators) was that shock cav could pretty much do the
same thing. Therefore, according to this school of thought, the Romans
beefed up their organization (safety in numbers) in order to counter
this threat. Furthermore, during the EIR period, the first cohort in a
legion was made a "super" cohort by doubling it's size and presumably,
this was the cohort that would be out there ready to suck up those cav
charges with the full knowledge that it was large enough to not take 1
CPF (since everything needs to be in WARRIOR terms, heh heh). Nothing
was done vis a vis "skill training" to enable a single legionaire to
better beat up cavalry. And if Arrian's accounts are to be trusted,
it's obvious that Roman field commanders were *still* in a quandary
during the second century AD about how to deal with with shock cav in
the open. More on this in a minute.

>Also please keep in mind that Marius' reforms were also largely
institutional and not designed to specifically change the basic way a
legionaire fought, whether he was some small landowner (virtually
non-existent in Marius' day) or one of the landless mob he recruited in
Rome. Therefore, I still feel the the system was/is designed to make it
difficult for legionaires (and "unarmored schlubs", I like that term) to
stand up to cav charges at least in terms of impact and assuming the
infantry hasn't tried to do something "special" in terms of formation(s)
in order to counter the cav. It's either that or some skill or
technical counter which wasn't apparently done in the case of Rome. As
I've been delving more into the feudal nature of the game and the issues
surrounding 2HCT, I see more and more of this, i.e., cavalry outpacing
infantry in terms of impact power and countermeasures taken by infantry
in attempt to level the playing field (so to speak). But......as I
mentioned earlier, this is only half the story.

>It is clear that at least Arrian concocted some type of formation that
"scared off" potential cav charges. I've been giving this tons of
thought since it was broached a month ago and yes, you can expect a list
rule of some ilk to be forthcoming, particularly for playtesting prior
to actual list publication. I still want to bounce the specifics off of
a few people prior to sharing. Yes, some people might see this as a
"band aid" and a failing of the rule system itself. Obviously I would
beg to differ in that summary. I always felt the failing was that we
tried to template one system in such a way that didn't take into account
very real "exceptions" to the template. So we'll see where this goes.

>I'll have more on this and on the whole 2HCT issue in a couple of
weeks.

Scott
List Ho


















Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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



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



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

Sorry meant to forward this to a friend, my appologies

Dave


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