Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

I've got a question I need help with. Let's say I've got an army of
hoplites or medieval LTS infantry. They are shielded HI, and
professional soldiers in good order. Some EHK or even shielded EHC
with lances (as in tha Maccabean Jewish list) come along, and, lunacy
of lunacy, they just come slamming right in impetuously (two ranks
deep) to my porcupine FRONTALLY. On a one element frontage, this is 5
at a 4 for the lancers, +1 charging, +2 impetuous, -2 facing LTS,= 5
@ a 5; does 20 casualties. The infantry fighting back is 6 LTS at a
3, +1 for facing inmpetuous mounted = 6 @ a 4; does 18. I lose!
Recoil disordered. The cav is disordered for taking 3 per. Next bound
(assuming somebody else doesn't come in to help finishe the job)the
Lancers expand out. Now it's is 6 Other cav weapons at a 2 vs. HI,
plus 2 for vs. disordered foot, + 1 for following up, -1 for tired, -
1 for disordered, = 6 @ a 3; does 15 casualties. The LTS coming back
is 6 at a 3, -2 for disorder,= 6 @ a 1; does 9. So, sooner or later,
I'm dead right? Recoild disordered (again), take a waver test. And on
and on until I break. Have I missed anything? It appears that if
anothger cav unit were available to slam in in bound 2, the LTS are
dead immediately.

My other question: Why would anyone buy an LTS army anymore? They're
dead against Pike, El, HTW, 2HCW, and now any shielded Cav with
lance. Against javelin-armed infantry they'll hold their own, but so
what? If they're HI, that would be true with just SA and no LTS. What
am I missing here?


Greek

[scott holder]

If they're HI, that would be true with just SA and no LTS. What
am I missing here?

A couple of thoughts:

One is that this is nothing new relative to TOG and l-armed cav in some lists
being able to form a certain formation and their subsequent ability vs LTS foot.

Two is that the key factor you're overlooking is unit size. In your example in
the second round, nothing happens assuming your hoplite block is at least 4E in
size. The mounted unit in question has to roll up. For that matter, nothing
might have happened in the first bound if your unit size was sufficiently large
enough to prevent an initial 1CPF. Okay, that means the opponent might have had
to fling 2 knight units into your hoplite block but now he's probably committed
close to half his strike force to try and eliminate 1 hoplite block,
particularly if your hoplite block was cheapie old MI (and if you can get em as
D's, there's gonna be loads more you than him, assuming you past your waver
checks....but I digress). The idea here is that the numbers in the combat
sequence should "encourage" players to run units in something akin to historical
strengths. To my knowledge, Greek Hoplites were not known for running around in
4E units. Many years ago, I wrote a piece for Spearpoint called "The Manipular
Phalanx" that examined this very issue as it pertained to the then popular
tactic of running Macedonian pike units (and their ilk) in 4E units.

Three is that LTS is no longer the rollover vs pike that it once was. Yes, it's
still outclassed but not the way it was further back in TOG. I'm content with
the current relationship between regular LTS units and pikes.

Four is that some LTS-armed armies can also come equipped with JLS. I'll take
those up against l-armed cav and even pike. Worse yet, look at some of the
Byzantine lists and their triple-armed skutatoi and such. Woo hoo, bring on the
knights since I'll most likely shoot the unit down one coming in and get a bonus
factor against all but SHK, possibly SHC (don't have charts in front of me and
don't have em memorized). Once I get done fleshing out the last of my 25mm Dark
Age stuff and possibly painting more late medieval stuff so that my lead
collection for the two Burgundian lists actually matches the new lists, I'd like
to do a Byzantine list, Early, Maurikian, etc., because I like the skutatoi.
Too bad I can't run regular cav worth a damn.

Everybody will agree that running an army who's backbone is regular LTS-armed
foot can be challenging and the biggest weaknesses of such Greek armies isn't so
much the backbone, it's all the supporting cast. That's why Carthagenians are
so much better albeit hard to run *well*.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:

> One is that this is nothing new relative to TOG and l-armed cav in
some lists being able to form a certain formation and their
subsequent ability vs LTS foot.

Quite right, but retty much limited to German wedging SHK. But let's
not get into TOG. I'm not trying to turn back the clock.


>
> Two is that the key factor you're overlooking is unit size. In
your example in the second round, nothing happens assuming your
hoplite block is at least 4E in size. <snip> The idea here is that
the numbers in the combat sequence should "encourage" players to run
units in something akin to historical strengths. To my knowledge,
Greek Hoplites were not known for running around in 4E units. Many
years ago, I wrote a piece for Spearpoint called "The Manipular
Phalanx" that examined this very issue as it pertained to the then
popular tactic of running Macedonian pike units (and their ilk) in 4E
units.
>

Couldn't agree, more old boy. My fellows are all "size 24" minimum,
except, of course the Sacred Band (only 300 men don't you know).

> Three is that LTS is no longer the rollover vs pike that it once
was. Yes, it's still outclassed but not the way it was further back
in TOG. I'm content with the current relationship between regular
LTS units and pikes.

Me, too, BUT as you know, I'd like to see some minor tinkering with
the Thebans to reflect their MUCH deeper hoplite formation and better
ability to stand up to Philip at Chaironea.

>
> Four is that some LTS-armed armies can also come equipped with
JLS.

Ah yes, but then for a Classical Greek, that would be cheating. ;)

>Worse yet, look at some of the Byzantine lists and their triple-
armed skutatoi and such. Woo hoo, bring on the knights since I'll
most likely shoot the unit down one coming in

Agreed again. Thank goodness for Orientalized Medieval Greeks! I'm
just bellyaching because this is just another example of what a HUGE
emphasis is place by Warrior on missile weapons. I can't help it. To
me missile weapons are for iffeminate, trouser-wearing, melee-fearing
Easterners ;)

>
> Everybody will agree that running an army who's backbone is regular
LTS-armed foot can be challenging and the biggest weaknesses of such
Greek armies isn't so much the backbone, it's all the supporting
cast.


"Then we shall fight in the shade!" Seriously, thanks for all these
comments, Scott, as I know they took substantial thought, and they
help me to understand better my various tactical predicaments. My
boys need all the "wily Odysseos-ness" they can get, i.e., a smarter
general. Comments by anyone else with a suggestion would also be most
welcome.


The Greek Kid

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,
It is my opinion and take it for what it is for what it's worth. . . Your
LTS army is the anvil that should be used to draw in the big boys for the kill.
What do I mean? Well, I prefer to use cheap (Regular "D's") LTS to draw in my
oponents big tough nasties and I use my lance armed cavalry to deliver the knock
out punch with a flank hit. Many of the armies that I play, have cheap close
order foot and massive fire-power. Take my Arab Empire for example. The biggest
part of the army is made up of 24 figure "D" trash! 2/3 Reg "D" MI LTS, Sh, 1/3
Reg "D" Mi B. I run my Regular HC L, Sh in between these boys because the
integral bow makes the infantry the preferred target and just enough room to
allow my cav units to do their dirty work to keep any moogs or their kind from
playing havoc with my foot. I want the knights to come crashing in. Oh yes! my
infantry units only cost 74 points each. Trust me, the kniggits are much more
expensive in their two element units and to see them
stuck on my pointy sticks is lovely and invites a nasty surprise in the flank.
Also, you may ask, why would kelly want Regulars??? They take longer to Kill!
Even if my opponent kills my foot, that's fine too! Usually he is impetuous and
has to continue killing my boys(Bloodfrenzy and all!). This just gives me more
time to bring up more stuff to kill his knights with and to shore up my lines
with.
Tactics are really personal and mine are certainly not perfect, but I did
manage to win all of my games doing this at historicon in the open taking second
place to Scott McDonald (I believe it was Scott. . . ). Oh yeah, and when you
choose trash armies like this, you get scads of troops! It's really fun to cover
the table and watch your opponent's face when you place your army on the table!
Ofcourse, my method does not use any of that Sissy light cavalry or light
infantry, but I usually manage to do well regardless. I hope this helps.

Kelly Wilkinson
PS You might consider using thematic Byzantines as their Skutatoi can be
downgraded to "D" status as can most of their supporting LMI/LI. Making your Cav
Reg "B" to pass waivers as the payback force could potentially make this a very
effective army especially with it's missile potential! And imaging the numbers
of troops on the table!!!

hrisikos8 <hrisikos@...> wrote:
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:

> One is that this is nothing new relative to TOG and l-armed cav in
some lists being able to form a certain formation and their
subsequent ability vs LTS foot.

Quite right, but retty much limited to German wedging SHK. But let's
not get into TOG. I'm not trying to turn back the clock.


>
> Two is that the key factor you're overlooking is unit size. In
your example in the second round, nothing happens assuming your
hoplite block is at least 4E in size. <snip> The idea here is that
the numbers in the combat sequence should "encourage" players to run
units in something akin to historical strengths. To my knowledge,
Greek Hoplites were not known for running around in 4E units. Many
years ago, I wrote a piece for Spearpoint called "The Manipular
Phalanx" that examined this very issue as it pertained to the then
popular tactic of running Macedonian pike units (and their ilk) in 4E
units.
>

Couldn't agree, more old boy. My fellows are all "size 24" minimum,
except, of course the Sacred Band (only 300 men don't you know).

> Three is that LTS is no longer the rollover vs pike that it once
was. Yes, it's still outclassed but not the way it was further back
in TOG. I'm content with the current relationship between regular
LTS units and pikes.

Me, too, BUT as you know, I'd like to see some minor tinkering with
the Thebans to reflect their MUCH deeper hoplite formation and better
ability to stand up to Philip at Chaironea.

>
> Four is that some LTS-armed armies can also come equipped with
JLS.

Ah yes, but then for a Classical Greek, that would be cheating. ;)

>Worse yet, look at some of the Byzantine lists and their triple-
armed skutatoi and such. Woo hoo, bring on the knights since I'll
most likely shoot the unit down one coming in

Agreed again. Thank goodness for Orientalized Medieval Greeks! I'm
just bellyaching because this is just another example of what a HUGE
emphasis is place by Warrior on missile weapons. I can't help it. To
me missile weapons are for iffeminate, trouser-wearing, melee-fearing
Easterners ;)

>
> Everybody will agree that running an army who's backbone is regular
LTS-armed foot can be challenging and the biggest weaknesses of such
Greek armies isn't so much the backbone, it's all the supporting
cast.


"Then we shall fight in the shade!" Seriously, thanks for all these
comments, Scott, as I know they took substantial thought, and they
help me to understand better my various tactical predicaments. My
boys need all the "wily Odysseos-ness" they can get, i.e., a smarter
general. Comments by anyone else with a suggestion would also be most
welcome.


The Greek Kid


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Greg Regets]

Good Morning Greekling ... :-)

There is one other factor that needs to be mentioned that can be used
to help you in the scenario mentioned.

In order for enemy mounted to frontally charge your steady LTS armed
troops, they must be in a command under ATTACK orders, with all the
madnatory advances that go along with these orders.

You have slingers that are dangerous to heavier mounted types, you
have Peltasts that are dangerous to all sorts of things. You have JLS
light infantry that will kill enemy light infantry.

You must not allow an enemy to attack you where he wants to and
ignore the madnatory advance towards things he might not want to deal
with. Half the bodies in the command advancing, means exactly that!

As a small bit of advice to add to what you have already been given.
Take note of how the enemy marches towards you. If half the units in
any given command do not march their full available march (or
appropriate tactical move) he is not under attack orders. Do not be
afraid to point out to your opponent that you do not consider him
under attack orders. It is not being a rules lawyer to make sure you
opponent in in obeyance.

You of course, are not compelled to tell him at that time that he may
not frontally charge your steady LTS with his mounted. A player that
does not know how to obey his orders, probably does not know about
the limitations of orders. Wait until he gets close, and let order
limitations be your little surprise ~wink~. You can then have a nice
laugh watching a bunch of mounted at <=160p try to madly counter in
the next bound.

See you this weekend ... g