Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/24/2005 20:17:16 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

Until they perform historically, though, there's
no reason to bother.>>


I am NOT trying to start trouble. But please note that because someone
here, no matter who, makes a blanket and definitive statement that troop type X
does not perform historically and we don't counter it or comment on it does
not mean we agree here at FHE.

I think it would be really useful if all of us presaged such comments with
'in my opinion'. I'll try and be careful of this. I would appreciate it if
folks here did so as well. I wouldn't feel the need to comment on half the
mails here if we all followed this simple procedure. In this example, someone
might feel that since Mark states definitively that Ordonnance foot do not
perform in Warrior as they did in history that we might be agreeing silently
and simply wishing the problem away if none of the FH said anything. Actually
we think they are just fine from an historical standpoint and simply disagree
with Mark's interpretation - nothing personal, but also no cover up of some
'mistake' on our part.

Thanks in advance for your support. I am serious - I think this simple move
would save a *lot* of email traffic.

J










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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 00:17:06 Central Standard Time, mark@d
igitalpilgrim.com writes:

This is a genuine question. Do you disagree with my interpretation because
(a) you don't think these guys are roadkill against historical opponents, or
(b)
because you think it's acceptable that these guys come out as roadkill
against
historical opponents?>>


(a). A unit of 6E of Ordonnance bowmen is not 'roadkill' to a unit of 2E
SHK. I think that was the comparison we were talking about, but may have lost
track.

J








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

[Mark Stone]

I guess my concern regarding French Ordannance is a little bit different from
Ed's. I don't much care whether the longbowmen are classed as HK or as HC. I
lean towards HK since anyone in this period who fought mounted at least some of
the time, knew how to handle a spear, and wore EHI class armor sounds an awful
lot like HK to me, but it really isn't that big a deal.

What does concern me is that the longbowmen and the handgunners are not classed
the same. These are essentially the same guys: professional soldiers, not
nobility, well equipped, well armed, and familiar with the latest in tactics
and technology. One of them gets classed as HK (the handgunners) and one as HC
(the longbowmen). That puzzles me.

My other concern is one that Jon has said repeatedly that FHE aims to get right:
historical performance against historical opponents.

The continental longbowman in the Ordannance period, whether fighting for
France, England (on the continent), or Burgundy, was the backbone of the army.
He was, by this time, a highly evolved professional soldier. The idea of taking
him on with a direct assault by mounted knights was considered a dubious
proposition at best in this post-100 Years' War period. Indeed, one of the
reason these guys up-armored to EHI was in response to the increasing use of
foot soldiers and missile fire as a way of dealing with them. But the basic
point remains: these guys were expected to have the advantage when charged by
knights. That doesn't mean an element-for-element advantage; they did have
superiority in numbers. But a typical block of these guys should be able to
fend off a mounted charge more often than not.

In actuality these guys are so much Warrior roadkill when faced off against
knights. The reason is pretty simple, and lies in the mechanics of the combat
table: lance charging is a 4, whether against MI or EHI, and since these guys
don't have shields they are actually worse at receiving a mounted charge than
their cheaper (but shielded) MI counterparts on the Early Burgundian list.

Sadly, this is one of the cases where Warrior does _not_ get historical
performance out of historical matchups. I'm not sure what the fix is. Simply
making these guys HK doesn't help much, as they'll still be most useful
dismounted and they'll still be shieldless EHI.

But if there were a reasonable fix, I'd play these guys with some frequency.
They still wouldn't be a "killer" army, but they have -- for me -- a ton of
historical interest and charm. Until they perform historically, though, there's
no reason to bother.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 24 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> Actually we think they are just fine from an historical standpoint and simply
> disagree with Mark's interpretation
>

If this comes off sounding sarcastic, I apologize, because I don't mean it that
way. This is a genuine question. Do you disagree with my interpretation because
(a) you don't think these guys are roadkill against historical opponents, or (b)
because you think it's acceptable that these guys come out as roadkill against
historical opponents?

As I said, no sarcasm intended, I just honestly don't know which of those two
was your intended meaning.

Either way, I'd love to get some historical insight into the reasoning. Not that
I expect anything in the army list to change, I'm just trying to understand.
Since this actually is a period of history I know quite a bit about, I'd
appreciate another perspective that I've obviously overlooked.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 24 I said: ---

>>
>> Do you disagree with my interpretation because
>> (a) you don't think these guys are roadkill against historical opponents, or
>> (b) because you think it's acceptable that these guys come out as roadkill
>> against historical opponents?
>>

--- To which Jon replied: ---

>
> (a). A unit of 6E of Ordonnance bowmen is not 'roadkill' to a unit of 2E
> SHK. I think that was the comparison we were talking about, but may have lost
> track.
>

Wow. Not the answer I was expecting, but yes, that is indeed the comparison we
were talking about.

Well Jon, I think it's really important that you reinforce your belief in this
proposition by playing armies as often as you can that include as many units of
shieldless 6E Ordonnance bowmen as possible. That sounds like a really good
idea. In fact, if you could do that in the NICT I'll promise to bring an army
with lots of 2E units of SHK. ;-)


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

...please note that because someone...makes a blanket and definitive statement
that troop type X does not perform historically and we don't counter it or
comment on it does
not mean we agree here at FHE.

>Quite the contrary. I've said this before but the art of list writing comes
down to interpreting the extent record and *effectively* translating it into
game terms, therefore, there are no absolutes, merely interpretations. And I
fully expect folks to disagree with some of mine (or Bill's). However, coming
out with such absolute statements to the contrary ignores the fact that this is
an "opionated" process. If you don't agree with mine, no problem. But coming
out with an absolute statement to the contrary when in fact it's simply another
opinion (ie, interpretation) does tend to make me ignore the post.

>Nobody agrees on everything--I've always expected folks to have honest, sincere
*differences of opinion* over how a FHE list portrays something. I look at some
of Phil's work and don't agree with it. But, in almost every case where he and
I have the same source materials, I can see why he zigged when I decided to zag.
It doesn't mean that either of us is "wrong", we just have different goals or
assumptions, whatever. Thus, when one of these absolute statements comes up, I
take it as "Scott is wrong" when in fact, Bill and I went thru an analytical
process that undoubtedly took into consideration the issues comprising an
"absolute post"

>When FHE divided up functions, we did so in such a way as to play to our
strengths. The last thing I wanted to do was to spend 3.5 years spending much
of my spare time at home and on the road writing army lists. But, I took on
that task because taking historical data and translating it into army lists in a
Warrior context was clearly my strength. I've had humongous amounts of support
from Bill and I feel that the two of us make an awfully good collaberative list
writing team. Oops, I digress:):)

In this example, someone
might feel that since Mark states definitively that Ordonnance foot do not
perform in Warrior as they did in history that we might be agreeing silently
and simply wishing the problem away if none of the FH said anything. Actually
we think they are just fine from an historical standpoint and simply disagree
with Mark's interpretation - nothing personal, but also no cover up of some
'mistake' on our part.

>Actually, Mark disagree's with our interpretation:):)

>And to answer another part of this thread, Jon summarizes it perfectly, 6E of
Ordonnance Bowmen are no pushover for a 2E SHK unit. Moreover, the HK
handgunners are there because as I read the ordonnances and review the
historical record of the subsequent 50 years, it was clear that they were
mounted and had enough armor to qualify as HK and were, well different, hence
the very odd combo of HK and HG. Moreover, their inclusion (note the very small
numbers of them) provides a little color to the list. I felt, and still feel,
that the Ordonnance Bowmen didn't meet that threshold as I outlined in my
previous post explaining why they are the way they are. Chris' supporting post
also provides more background in that regard. That is why I didn't go that
route.

>As Jon said, I don't wanna start any trouble here. Clearly list writing is
always open to second guessing, I expected that pain when I began writing lists.
However, how that second guessing and disagreements are presented here clearly
impacts on how amenable I am to giving them consideration.

scott

[joncleaves]

Well Jon, I think it's really important that you reinforce your belief in this
proposition by playing armies as often as you can that include as many units of
shieldless 6E Ordonnance bowmen as possible. That sounds like a really good
idea. In fact, if you could do that in the NICT I'll promise to bring an army
with lots of 2E units of SHK. >>

That was somewhat 'snarky'...lol

Mark, let's make sure we are talking the same thing here.

First, you of all people should know the dangers of making judgments based on
isolated matchups - you have warned this list of those dangers before. I am
surprised you'd go here based on your history of common sense on this issue.

I have 6E EHI/HI LB, you have 2E SHK L. I shoot you, let's say at long range,
just to remove that kibbitz (and because if I ever got to 120p, you'd be
dead...)

I shoot 9@2 for 18. You are disordered and when you charge will be tired.
You charge and are 5@8 (lance 4, imp 2, chg 1 shieldless 1) - 4 (-1 disordered,
-1 tired, -2 support shot 12@0 [given that you get on the end element, not
foregone either]) = a final 5@4 which is 15 which doesn't recoil or disorder me.

That, in my view, is not 'roadkill'. All I am saying.

If you counter that the situation is contrived and that there would be other
units and terrain that would influence that fight, I agree.

Jon