Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

B's get one result back from a bad random factor in hand to hand. I have
seen that save a unit a hundred times over. It also feels right: B's aren't
hugely superior, they are more reliable.
It is one of the subtleties of Warrior that make it the game I want to play
over others.
To alter the morale rules at this point would put us in publication literally
years from now. And that would be because someone at FHE didn't think they
are just fine which we all do. Game design is over. What we need now is
help with lists.

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

Ed may be on to something here. Rather akin to Napoleon's Horse Grenadiers
being HC and facing the Dutch Carbineers (also HC) and having absolutely no
problem with them in hand to hand. Morale class should have more to do with
troop performance than it currently does. It SHOULD also represent the skill
with which the particular weapon type is being used or the ability in
individual/ individual unit combat. Huscarls should routinely beat an even
number of Fyrdmen, yet currently each can impetitiously charge the other and
high die wins.

Perhaps we could start play testing something akin to a +2 for up rolls for
all A's and maybe even a +1 for up rolls for all B's and then in the lists
just make it that much more difficult to obtain aforementioned troop grades.
Shouldn't the Prateorians, particularly the earlier ones, routinely defeat
the average irregular trash or even Roman Legionairre? Currently the same
Prateorians are just less likely to run in the face of bad things happening
and stand a worse than even chance against irregular C's going impetitious.

Chris

[joncleaves]

Chris

No way. See other mail on same subject. You are calling for a two year
delay in Warrior, minimum, when I could write probably five list rules per
book and publish by Historicon.

Jon

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

Okay, I definitely see your route here and I do understand your desire to get
to publishing. How does one represent the highly trained Roman legion on the
board? Currently they are no better than any Reg C medieval militia unit,
with the exception that they can save themselves a bad die roll. How does
one simulate the sheer brilliance of the training that each legionnaire
received and the fact that they served for years as opposed to just during
the campaign season? The fact that they may not perform as poorly as others
does not come close to doing justice to the skill that they are renowned for
demonstrating. You are quite right that you cannot write enough rules to
account for every event much less fluke in history, but the example you
offered from Granicus, under the current rules would stand just as much
chance of success being performed by Italian Sergeants (Reg C MC L, Sh) as by
the Companions. Can your intention truly be to define the very elite troops
of antiquity simply by their ability to be less likely to fight south of
mediocre? We have all played WRG for years/decades now. None of us saw
anything inherently wrong with the morale system as designed. But we were
playing within a rule set that was set before us. It was not open to debate
nor improvement. Much discussion of such was poopooed because it was so
much meaningless mental gymnastics. We now have a truly novel idea set
before us, actually before the FHE. Just maybe a step back might be in
order, to consider/wargame/ perhaps eventually tear apart what Ed is
proposing.

The recent editorial in HMGS East made some salient points, perhaps subtlety,
yet I believe obviously, directed at our preferred rules set. Deadlines are
definitely necessary in virtually all endeavors. Sometimes, lightning is
caught in a bottle. Often such events are missed, we are so focused on the
immediate mission. It seems to me that we (that is a generic we by the way)
would probably want to take advantage, even if deadlines were per chance
missed.

Sorry for the length.

Chris

[joncleaves]

I do not think it is fundamentally broken.

I think there are some troop types that outperformed thier standard Warrior
classification and I would, I say again, much rather do five or so list rules
in a book than make a new game. Especially since by doing Biblical Warrior
first, which has the least contentiousness, we have six to eight months of
undistracted attention for the next list book and six-eight more months
(additive) for each of the others.

What the Companions and Roman legions did cannot be accurately reflected by
the base rules as they exist. No argument. We am not making a new game to
solve that problem, we are going to do it in the lists.

I don't want a new game, I want Warrior. Maybe the persians just rolled down
3.

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

Sorry to be so fixated on the subject of morale but it lays at the heart
of the current game system and my perception of the main problem.

B class by definition are highly motivated and highly trained, the elite
regulars and the irregulars of noble birth ( who spend their time at hunt
and practice to keep sharp).

Well above C class in weapon training and motivation who are the great
bulk of the armies who have some weapon training.

These definitions have carried through since at least 4th edition and are
also in Warrior. Historically and in martial arts, in hand to hand
combat, having weapon training advantage is to dominate the opponent.
With B's not having a pronounced advantage over lower grade troops other
than they do not run away as fast runs counter to the above definition of
the morale classes as in the rules. This is recognized to some extent by
giving Irr A's a +2 if they roll up.

An example is the Roman civil wars with the elite units of Julius Caesar
( B class ) totally dominating in combat the opposing units that had seen
mainly garrison duty ( C class ). It was not a matter of not running
away as fast, it was a matter of winning combat consentingly in face to
face confrontation.

Is this something that can be addressed in the lists somehow ?

Or do you not see it as a problem and you just want me to go away? :)

Ed F

[joncleaves]

<<French feudal knights should win against part time city knights. The veteran
10th leg should win against a non veteran garrison leg. The Spartan should win
a straight up face off against Athens. Huscarls
should routinely beat an even number of Fyrdmen. This goes to the heart of the
morale definition.
It is not that these troop types outperformed their basic definition, but that
their basic morale definition was correctly reflected when
comparing historical opponents.>>

For those parts of the above that we agree with, we will do list rules. I have
already said twice that we will NOT be doing list rules without real history to
back it up. If you want to be a part of those list rules, the best way is to
get us applicable history. Note that merely stating 'everyone knows X can wax Y
every time' will NOT be enough.

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,
I think we have narrowed our differences on morale down to the basic
disagreement.

Are you saying that, as a general case, B's should not have a
qualitative edge in winning a combat over C's?

I keep going back to the basic definitions as what makes up the morale
class and this tells me that B's should have a qualitative edge over C's
and C's over D's.
All through history and all through modern times, a highly trained and
motivated army wins consistently against lessor trained and motivated
opponents.

French feudal knights should win against part time city knights. The
veteran 10th leg should win against a non veteran garrison leg. The
Spartan should win a straight up face off against Athens. Huscarls
should routinely beat an even number of Fyrdmen. This goes to the heart
of the morale definition.
It is not that these troop types outperformed their basic definition,
but that their basic morale definition was correctly reflected when
comparing historical opponents.

Just the fact that they have the same weapon does not make them close to
equal in their use of the weapon.

This is both a basic rules and a list problem in my view. I would not
think that it would be that difficult a fix though. Up the basic combat
of B's and Reg A's ( Irr A's are already covered ) or reduce the lower
grades and be a bit tighter on awarding higher morale status in the
lists.

Ed Forbes


On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:36:04 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
>
> << This is my point. Can this problem of B vs C be covered just by
> army
> lists? >>
>
> I snipped the problem. It isn't morale, it is a troop that
> outperformed
> their basic definition in Warrior.
> And what I have been saying all along is that in those cases where
> history
> dictates some improvement over the finite (yet large enough already)
> set of
> troop types in the basic rules, a list rule is exactly what we will
> do.
>
> We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives us.
> If we
> could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into
> persian
> infantry and win.
>
> Jon
>

[Greg Regets]

Using your example of knights, I would say that B's do have an advantage
over C's and C's over D's.

All things being equal, your typical Irregular B class knight will be eager,
thus able to go impetuous more readily. Not always true for C's. Experienced
players will know how to use this. With C's over D's, you of course have the
issue of the D's waver testing to charge unless under attack orders. This
usually ends up big against an opponent skilled at actually making you obey
your orders. There is also the ability to make counters and the ability to
test if shot into a must charge situation that is not favorable. If used
properly, all these small advantages add up to a huge advantage.

Even without all this and again all things being equal, the fight will
normally come down to waver tests for consecutive combat disorders. Moral
obviously comes into play in this area.

Add to all this high moral Regular loose order troops armed with JLS,LTS or
JLS,D ... troops that until the advent of the 1.5 lance rule (I shudder to
even mention that) were the best cavalry killers in the game. As an aside,
if you really want to argue the 1.5 lance rule, start right there. These
loose order troops were historically used to fight in broken ground, NOT to
roam the battlefield looking for cavalry to kill. the 1.5 lance rule
balances the scales in my opinion.

At any rate Ed, it shows how reasonable and experienced players don't always
agree. I respect your opinion greatly, but must say, I'm on completely the
opposite end of the issue. I think moral, especially B and A moral to too
cheap for all the tiny little things you get for one or two points a figure.

Thanks ... Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@...]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:14 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re:Morale


Jon,
I think we have narrowed our differences on morale down to the basic
disagreement.

Are you saying that, as a general case, B's should not have a
qualitative edge in winning a combat over C's?

I keep going back to the basic definitions as what makes up the morale
class and this tells me that B's should have a qualitative edge over C's
and C's over D's.
All through history and all through modern times, a highly trained and
motivated army wins consistently against lessor trained and motivated
opponents.

French feudal knights should win against part time city knights. The
veteran 10th leg should win against a non veteran garrison leg. The
Spartan should win a straight up face off against Athens. Huscarls
should routinely beat an even number of Fyrdmen. This goes to the heart
of the morale definition.
It is not that these troop types outperformed their basic definition,
but that their basic morale definition was correctly reflected when
comparing historical opponents.

Just the fact that they have the same weapon does not make them close to
equal in their use of the weapon.

This is both a basic rules and a list problem in my view. I would not
think that it would be that difficult a fix though. Up the basic combat
of B's and Reg A's ( Irr A's are already covered ) or reduce the lower
grades and be a bit tighter on awarding higher morale status in the
lists.

Ed Forbes


On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:36:04 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
>
> << This is my point. Can this problem of B vs C be covered just by
> army
> lists? >>
>
> I snipped the problem. It isn't morale, it is a troop that
> outperformed
> their basic definition in Warrior.
> And what I have been saying all along is that in those cases where
> history
> dictates some improvement over the finite (yet large enough already)
> set of
> troop types in the basic rules, a list rule is exactly what we will
> do.
>
> We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives us.
> If we
> could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into
> persian
> infantry and win.
>
> Jon
>


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Greg, Quite, knowledge is power be careful who you share it with..........

[Ed Forbes]

Greg,

I think I follow your thread here. It is not so much a straight up fight
that counts but the death of a thousand cuts. I think that would be
applied more to those facing elephant / chariot armies than the period
matchups in my examples. I would think that unease would not be that
much of an issue in my examples.

D class has it's own problems and that is why I have no problem with D's.


I still feel that to much is on the weapon / armor and not enough on
morale. The fact that you dress someone in full plate, put him on a
horse, and then train several days a month over several years does not
make him infact a knight.

Anyway, looking forward to Historicon and actually playing some 7th (
Warrior ) again. It is completely dead out here on the west coast. Its
DBM or nothing and I have a real problem getting enthused about DBM's
game mechanics.

Thanks,
Ed Forbes



On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:33:30 -0600 Greg Regets <greg@...>
writes:
> Using your example of knights, I would say that B's do have an
> advantage
> over C's and C's over D's.
>
> All things being equal, your typical Irregular B class knight will
> be eager,
> thus able to go impetuous more readily. Not always true for C's.
> Experienced
> players will know how to use this. With C's over D's, you of course
> have the
> issue of the D's waver testing to charge unless under attack orders.
> This
> usually ends up big against an opponent skilled at actually making
> you obey
> your orders. There is also the ability to make counters and the
> ability to
> test if shot into a must charge situation that is not favorable. If
> used
> properly, all these small advantages add up to a huge advantage.
>
> Even without all this and again all things being equal, the fight
> will
> normally come down to waver tests for consecutive combat disorders.
> Moral
> obviously comes into play in this area.
>
> Add to all this high moral Regular loose order troops armed with
> JLS,LTS or
> JLS,D ... troops that until the advent of the 1.5 lance rule (I
> shudder to
> even mention that) were the best cavalry killers in the game. As an
> aside,
> if you really want to argue the 1.5 lance rule, start right there.
> These
> loose order troops were historically used to fight in broken ground,
> NOT to
> roam the battlefield looking for cavalry to kill. the 1.5 lance rule
> balances the scales in my opinion.
>
> At any rate Ed, it shows how reasonable and experienced players
> don't always
> agree. I respect your opinion greatly, but must say, I'm on
> completely the
> opposite end of the issue. I think moral, especially B and A moral
> to too
> cheap for all the tiny little things you get for one or two points a
> figure.
>
> Thanks ... Greg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@...]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:14 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re:Morale
>
>
> Jon,
> I think we have narrowed our differences on morale down to the basic
> disagreement.
>
> Are you saying that, as a general case, B's should not have a
> qualitative edge in winning a combat over C's?
>
> I keep going back to the basic definitions as what makes up the
> morale
> class and this tells me that B's should have a qualitative edge over
> C's
> and C's over D's.
> All through history and all through modern times, a highly trained
> and
> motivated army wins consistently against lessor trained and
> motivated
> opponents.
>
> French feudal knights should win against part time city knights.
> The
> veteran 10th leg should win against a non veteran garrison leg. The
> Spartan should win a straight up face off against Athens. Huscarls
> should routinely beat an even number of Fyrdmen. This goes to the
> heart
> of the morale definition.
> It is not that these troop types outperformed their basic
> definition,
> but that their basic morale definition was correctly reflected when
> comparing historical opponents.
>
> Just the fact that they have the same weapon does not make them
> close to
> equal in their use of the weapon.
>
> This is both a basic rules and a list problem in my view. I would
> not
> think that it would be that difficult a fix though. Up the basic
> combat
> of B's and Reg A's ( Irr A's are already covered ) or reduce the
> lower
> grades and be a bit tighter on awarding higher morale status in the
> lists.
>
> Ed Forbes
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:36:04 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
> >
> > << This is my point. Can this problem of B vs C be covered just
> by
> > army
> > lists? >>
> >
> > I snipped the problem. It isn't morale, it is a troop that
> > outperformed
> > their basic definition in Warrior.
> > And what I have been saying all along is that in those cases where
>
> > history
> > dictates some improvement over the finite (yet large enough
> already)
> > set of
> > troop types in the basic rules, a list rule is exactly what we
> will
> > do.
> >
> > We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives
> us.
> > If we
> > could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into
>
> > persian
> > infantry and win.
> >
> > Jon
> >
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> 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/
>
>

[Chris Bump]

Greg,

I think that you are missing the point here. Irr B's and even C's have a
distinct advantge over their regular counterparts because of the ability to
go impetitious. Presuming the Roman Cohorts are going to be receiving more
charges than they initiate for this reason, I believe Ed's point is about how
do we represent the quality of soldier once combat is joined. The Reg B
troop should not be the equivilent of the Reg C and for that matter the Reg A
should not be the equivilent of either the Reg B or Reg C troops. The only
factor that seperates them is that the Reg A and B are less likely to roll
down by as much as the Reg C. This does not accurately demonstrate the
difference in training and morale. Elite troops should be such. Once in
Combat the veteran Roman soldier/ unit (I hate to keep going back to the
well, but they do make the point very well) was able to rely upon his years
of harsh training and discipline (a source of morale) to persevere and break
the impetitious charge of his often numerically, not to mention physically,
superior enemy. The same is true for the differences between Knights who
spent all of their time paracticing and preparing for war and the wealthy
merchants who donned armor during the campaign season and proclaimed
themselves Knights. The current rules do not allow for this, or at least
that is what I am taking from Ed's arguments.

Chris

[Greg Regets]

I think Chris (but one never knows, haha) that I get the point, I just do
not agree with it.

Part of the training of something like a Roman Legionaries and Auxilia was
the ability to maneuver into a situation where fighting ability is
accentuated. Clearly the B moral soldier has the advantage over his C
counterparts, as he has a greater likelihood to make counters, moral checks,
etc. Now, this doesn't come into play when the commanders choose to make
huge units, line them up shoulder to shoulder and charge home, but that's
not a moral issue, it's a creativity issue.

Even barring all that, lets look at two eight figure Late Roman Legionary
units, one with B moral, and one with C moral. The fight is straight up,
both get 6@7. Barring a dice disaster, which the B moral player is less
likely to be involved in, this fight will come down to consecutive disorder
checks. The B moral unit only misses on a one, something that will only
happen one time in six, and the C misses on a 1or2 in six, which will come
op every third roll. So, dice luck aside, the B unit is actually half as
likely to miss moral as the C unit. This by rote makes them twice as good.

The real point here is that the B unit gets the maneuver advantage, a bit
more protection from a dice disaster, and the waver test advantage ... all
for eight points. Are you really saying that you want even MORE of an
advantage ... all for eight points?

To me, moral is a funny thing, and always has been. If your buying something
like Peltasts or Auxilia, you would probably pay twice the point value to
upgrade them to the magic B status. I know I would. Then again, if your
buying something like big ol' 32 figure pike units in a Seleucid army, who's
function is to pin and protect, so the elephants can do their work, you
probably like the option to buy them as D's and upgrade one element to C.

I think the points vs. moral advantage is an old argument, and one that will
never be solved. For every argument on one side (like mine) there is another
on the opposite side (like Ed's and yours) that is equally valid!

Thanks ... and see you in May ... Greg

[Ed Forbes]

Chris,

my point exactly.

I need to still work the math but I belive that I will find the
percentage difference in quality in combat between B's and C's is very
small and that impetuous C's are superior to Reg B's.

This is not born out in history as a general rule. Pages can be filled
of smaller units of high quality troops beating masses of line troops.

There are exceptions. One that comes to mind, and I am fuzzy on the
particulars ( been to long since I read on this period ), is the clash
between the elite Sacred Band ( Athens ? ) and Macedonian pike. The
weapon system did play a major part, but these were vet pike. I do not
know enough of this period to classify the pike as B or C.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that a secondary
classification needs to be used, that of veteran. Nothing like combat to
trim down to the "true survivors". One can also be elite, but have
little experience. Black power rules have used this for years and it
seems to match these more recent historical wars that we have so much
more data on.

Reliable hard data is so lacking beyond the last 200 years. This is one
of the reasons these discussions keep coming up. No one knows what
really happened. We know the effect, but we do not know the process.
The historians were biased, did not write on military history, or passed
over the detail as "everyone knows that".

Ed F

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:05:32 EST cncbump@... writes:
> Greg,
>
> I think that you are missing the point here. Irr B's and even C's
> have a
> distinct advantge over their regular counterparts because of the
> ability to
> go impetitious. Presuming the Roman Cohorts are going to be
> receiving more
> charges than they initiate for this reason, I believe Ed's point is
> about how
> do we represent the quality of soldier once combat is joined. The
> Reg B
> troop should not be the equivilent of the Reg C and for that matter
> the Reg A
> should not be the equivilent of either the Reg B or Reg C troops.
> The only
> factor that seperates them is that the Reg A and B are less likely
> to roll
> down by as much as the Reg C. This does not accurately demonstrate
> the
> difference in training and morale. Elite troops should be such.
> Once in
> Combat the veteran Roman soldier/ unit (I hate to keep going back to
> the
> well, but they do make the point very well) was able to rely upon
> his years
> of harsh training and discipline (a source of morale) to persevere
> and break
> the impetitious charge of his often numerically, not to mention
> physically,
> superior enemy. The same is true for the differences between
> Knights who
> spent all of their time paracticing and preparing for war and the
> wealthy
> merchants who donned armor during the campaign season and proclaimed
>
> themselves Knights. The current rules do not allow for this, or
> at least
> that is what I am taking from Ed's arguments.
>
> Chris
>

[Phil Gardocki]

In the early 90's I wrote an article in Spearpoint regarding the odds differences.  I have not been able to find the issue, and searching my PC for old documents is also empty.  But I know I ran across it recently, as tractor feed paper catches the eye.  So when I find it I will transcribe it.

Phil G


Chris,

My point exactly.
I need to still work the math but I believe that I will find the percentage difference in quality in combat between B's and C's is very
small and that impetuous C's are superior to Reg B's.