Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

I'm glad you posted this Jon, because I had the same exact thought,
but didn't know how to tactfully put it.

Added to your thoughts;

Warrior units move around independently, etc ... This CAN be the
case, but is not by default THE case. Many players prefer groups of
units that tend to operate in small "teams" that mutually support
each other. This is for practical purposes as much as anything else.
Speaking only for myself, I'm not smart enough to have twenty things
to do at once and do them all correctly, so I tend to build my army
into function-based teams. I find it much easier to control three or
four "teams" plus the half-dozen or so loose units that allow you to
still have flexibility within the team structure.

The whole 120p gap statement is just problematic in my opinion. About
the only type of army that can effectively leave that sort of gap
along the whole line of battle, is a cavalry army based around light
cavalry ... and in that instance you will probably be playing for a
draw against heavier opponents. Armies of heavier types that practice
this sort of thing will not win consistantly, in my opinion.

Good tactical discussion though ... and thanks to all participants.

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> My $0.02
>
> <<Bodies move very independly and,
> as long as their are friendly bodies within 120 paces, are
completely happy.
> Note that 120 paces is wide enough for enemy bodies to advance
through.>>
>
> I have trouble reconciling the above. If 120p support distance is
enough to allow close order units to move around like tanks SAFELY,
then why note that 120p is enough for someone to move through? Well,
the issue is that 120p CANNOT be charged through unless both
shoulders of the gap are routed/already in hand to hand. If you have
someone charging through a gap less than 2E wide without that
condition being met, then you have someone not playing Warrior.
> This 120p support rule is designed to reflect that the notion
of 'unit' can be somewhat arbitrary in any ancients game. We take
unit to mean a group of men who identify with one another as 'being
together' for combat - under the command of a single
local 'captain'. how many men were in a West Sudanese
infantry 'unit'? Don't know - you get to decide. the more groups
you want to put these men in, the more of your total military effort
will go into commanding them separately (command factor points).
Where did one unit start believing a unit nearby would be able to
protect their flanks? Also somewhat arbitrary - Warrior's answer is
one foot approach+charge move/less than the size gap an enemy can
charge through.
>
> Read this:
>
> << Flanks are secondary. Mutual body support
> in a single line is relatively worthless.>>
>
> And then what immediately follows it in Mike's post:
>
> << Kills are gained by, in my
> opinion, sending other bodies (typically cavalry or barbarians)
between the
> blocks of infantry to either flank the enemy, or break through
locally.>>
>
> If flanks are secondary and having mutual support in an unbroken
line is meaningless, then why the concern that enemy bodies will gain
those flanks? Of course flanks are not secondary and of course an
unbroken line is better than gaps greater than 2E that the enemy can
charge through.
>
> Two 8E hoplite units facing the same way, with front edges along
the same line and 120p from each other cannot receive an enemy charge
into the space between them unless both are in hand to hand and/or
routing. Ceratinly it would be 'better' for them to be closer
together (at <1E it would not matter if they were in hand to hand,
the space could not be charged into EVER).
>
> I coached some players this weekend about the importance of
maintaining a battle line and the effect in the face of a good
general of lots of angles and open flanks and 'ancient tank infantry
blocks'. Then last night I disrespected my own advice to get an
advantage and paid for it (thus better illustrating the lesson than I
had on Sunday....). Warrior is designed to make it hard to move your
units in an ahistorical manner, hard on open flanks, hard on
surrounded units.
>
> <<b. For good or bad, Warrior determines the effectiveness of
everything by
> what they are armed with and what they are carried. There is a
significant
> amount of information that training and morale were far more
important than
> weapons except for extreme differences.>>
>
> I agree with the latter sentence and not with the former. If the
former were true, for example:
>
> -no weapon would fight more than 1 rank (there is no pike as long
as 16 ranks of men - they fight 4 ranks due to formation and
doctrine, not the weapon)
> -HTW would not resolve to other infantry (trained swordsmen) at 1.5
ranks.
> -B's and Reg A's would not get back one random factor minus (a far
bigger deal than 90% of players realize) - same with D's losing a +1.
>
> We do feel however that tech made a big difference, no doubt. I
could grab 100 guys and give them swords and train them to stand and
take a cav charge for a week. I could take another 100 for a week
and give them 12 foot spears and large shields. I have no questions
in my mind which group would fare better when the charge came.....
>
> J