Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Greetings
>
> I'd started to draft a longish reply on the development of troop
> types from hoplite to phalangite/legionary in the Eastern and Western
> Mediterranean but my son decided to delete it after breakfast before
> I got back to the PC.
>
> You are all probably better off.
>
> So just a few short comments.
>


I find that I agree with Edward on the vast majority of these comments
(although the use of the term "aspis" is unfamiliar to me; I prefer to
call the shield the hoplon). I do have one serious disagreement. I DO NOT
believe that the power of peltasts is in any way overstated in Warrior.
Against their historical opponents (other than hoplites), they already
behave very realistically, and it would be improper to class later
peltasts as irregular, since after Iphicrates, mercenary bands and
thureophoroi citizens appear to have been trained as least as well as old
hoplites, and they were capable of very delicate and speedy
dance-throw-skirmish maneuvers. As they are, they are classic auxillia, a
bad match for cavalry and close order foot, but good regular skirmishers,
death to LI, and a strategic counterpoise to LC. This is as it should be.
If irreg, they might as well be Gauls. This would make no sense at all.

The one exception is their overstated effect AGAINST HOPLITES, but this
merely reinforces what we have been saying ABOUT HOPLITES. Appropriate
list rules that Edward and I have suggested (among others) will fix the
hoplite's underachievement against any troop type, including the peltast,
thus addressing the peltast's overestimation against the relevant troop
type (hoplites) while not screwing up the whole game and altering the
peltast's effect against all others.



Greek

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 18 Greek said: ---

>
> I DO NOT believe that the power of peltasts is in any way overstated in
Warrior.
> Against their historical opponents (other than hoplites), they already
> behave very realistically, and it would be improper to class later
> peltasts as irregular
>

So, being mainly a medievalist I have no particular opinion on the
characterization of peltasts. I will point out, however, that we have already
committed ourselves to an interpretation of peltasts that Classical Warrior
must accomodate:

Imperial Warrior, List 5, Later Rhoxolani, Siracae, Iayges Sarmatian:
"Bosporan Infantry Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @20 pts..... *4-12
These guys are clearly peltasts.

Imperial Warrior, List 7, Parthian:
"Ex-Seleucid Peltasts Reg D LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @16.... *4-12"

Imperial Warrior, List 8, Bosporan:
"Greek Mercenaries Reg C each unit all MI or all LMI LTS,Sh @16 pts.... 0-18
Extra to give Greek LMI JLS @4.... any"
Again, if taken as LMI these guys are clearly peltasts.

Imperial Warrior, List 9, Commagene:
"Mercenary Thureophoroi Reg C LMI LTS,Sh@16.... 0-12
Extra to give Thureophoroi JLS @4.... any
Extra to upgrade Thureophoroi to LHI as Thorakitai @8.... 0-1/2"

Imperial Warrior, List 11, Mithradatic:
"Thureophoroi Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @20 pts.... 6-18"

There are probably other examples I've overlooked, but you get the idea. What an
peltast is, and where the evolution of that troop type ends up, is already
determined by the lists in Imperial Warrior. Classical Warrior can only fill in
the story in a way that is consistent with the ending.

To retro-actively change an already published army list book would go against
every principle Four Horsemen has claimed differentiates them from WRG.


-Mark

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2004 22:47:01 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

> To retro-actively change an already published army list book would go
> against
> every principle Four Horsemen has claimed differentiates them from WRG.
>
>
> -Mark



No worries Mark, et al. *That* won't happen. We may or may not see one or
more list rules on hoplites, but the troop types mentioned in Mark's post and
our interpretation of what is a peltast are not changing.

Jon


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

[Bill Chriss]

> I will point out, however, that we have
> already
> committed ourselves to an interpretation of peltasts that Classical
> Warrior
> must accomodate:
>
> Imperial Warrior, List 5, Later Rhoxolani, Siracae, Iayges Sarmatian:
> "Bosporan Infantry Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @20 pts..... *4-12
> These guys are clearly peltasts.
>
> Imperial Warrior, List 7, Parthian:
> "Ex-Seleucid Peltasts Reg D LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @16.... *4-12"
>
> Imperial Warrior, List 8, Bosporan:
> "Greek Mercenaries Reg C each unit all MI or all LMI LTS,Sh @16
> pts.... 0-18
> Extra to give Greek LMI JLS @4.... any"
> Again, if taken as LMI these guys are clearly peltasts.
>
> Imperial Warrior, List 9, Commagene:
> "Mercenary Thureophoroi Reg C LMI LTS,Sh@16.... 0-12
> Extra to give Thureophoroi JLS @4.... any
> Extra to upgrade Thureophoroi to LHI as Thorakitai @8.... 0-1/2"
>
> Imperial Warrior, List 11, Mithradatic:
> "Thureophoroi Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh @20 pts.... 6-18"
>
> There are probably other examples I've overlooked, but you get the idea.
> What an
> peltast is, and where the evolution of that troop type ends up, is
> already
> determined by the lists in Imperial Warrior. Classical Warrior can only
> fill in
> the story in a way that is consistent with the ending.
>
> To retro-actively change an already published army list book would go
> against
> every principle Four Horsemen has claimed differentiates them from WRG.
>
>
> -Mark


Yes, thank you Mark. Obviously, I agree completely, although you have said
it better and more directly (as usual).



Greek

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/19/2004 07:11:41 Central Standard Time,
mwolverton@... writes:

I take it the option to run most of your hoplites as half irr D and
half irr A that was featured in the 7th edition Athenian list will
not see the light of day again?

I always wanted to give this one a whirl back in the days of
the "old game" but never got around to it. Probably for the best
really....

Martin



Martin - no idea yet. Right now we're just brainstorming.

J


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

I take it the option to run most of your hoplites as half irr D and
half irr A that was featured in the 7th edition Athenian list will
not see the light of day again?

I always wanted to give this one a whirl back in the days of
the "old game" but never got around to it. Probably for the best
really....

Martin
Irr A addict....

Hi all, this discussion is very interesting!
It seems to me that the answer may be creating a new kind of shield: big shield
or hoplite shield. This may give a further -1 both against shooting and in hand
to hand combat. This way the hoplites will suffer less cassualties, what I think
it is ok.
The other factor I think must be considered is the moral one. It seems that
hoplites had a moral advantage versus certain troops.
Feliz Navidad.
Emilio Moskowich
Spain


A few of the things Greek has said here resonated with me. I wanted to share
my thoughts since my doubles partner has an inexplicable enthusiasm for
hoplites and therefore I am doomed to have to use them from time to time (
Sorry Mike :-)

Here are some of the idea's I like best so far and some things to consider;

1: Shielded hoplites count as in cover for shooting.
- I like this idea
- should they get the benefit if they moved in the approach phase or are
on march orders? I think that Hoplites on march orders would not be hunkered
down enough for a cover benefit.
-what if they are actually in cover, is there an added benefit?

2: 120 pace charge
- seems to make sense, but that is also problematic in allot of ways.
- What if they simply don't have to suffer the -40 pace reduction for
entering difficult terrain where LTS is still eligible to fight.
- Perhaps they should also not become disordered for entering difficult
terrain where LTS is eligible to fight.
-In other words, in Forest, these benefits don't apply, but in Brush
they do.

3: Additional -1 tf at first contact
- I think that one of the best ways to fix the inequities for Hoplites
is to adjust tactical factors to where it is very unlikely that they will be
broken at contact.
- By extension though, Hoplites should not be breaking their opponents
on contact either. I agree with Greek that a war of attrition is the way to
go, although I think many will say that this still rules them out as a
viable tournament army.

4: Fighting 2 ranks all the time
-This should tip the balance towards the hoplites once the attrition
phase begins.
- I think extra ranks might be overkill, just an unsubstantiated
opinion.



Of course, to Mike, much of what I have just said will sound like bar bar
bar... bar bar bar bar bar (hope you get a chuckle out of that Mike, see you
soon)

Allan






Yahoo! Groups Links