Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Well, I seem to be awake this morning, courtesy of my 16-month son , so
here's some commentary.

Before I do that, though: anyone want to lend me an army for the Roman
theme? Don't really care what, although it would be nice were it not
completely hopeless! Anyway, on to the proposed list.

> From: "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@...>
> Subject: Patrician Roman ideas
>
> Here is the resulting army list.
>
> 15mm Patrician Romans
> 1x CinC 1E Reg A HC JLS,Sh @124 =124
> 4x Equites 2E Reg C HC L,B,Sh @82 =328
> 5x Auxilia Infantry/Bowmen 3E Reg D LMI 1JLS,D,Sh/1JLS,Sh/1B,Sh @50
> =250
> 1x Light Bolt Shooter 2E Reg D Art 2 crew @46 =46
> 2x Germanic Foederati Noble Cavalry 4E Irr B HC L,Sh @133 =266
> 2x Germanic Foederati Follower Cavalry 4E Irr C MC L,Sh @97 =194
> 4x Germanic Foederati Warriors 6E Irr C MI HTW,Sh @97 =388
> 1x Camp 4E Irr D Tr @0 =0
> =1,596 total
>
> Now, any advice, please, regarding what I might watch out for in
> competition with these?

I'll answer that question in a moment. More general comments on the list:

1. No light troops at all? You do have 25 scouts, so may not often be
outscouted, but your two options will be (i) force march something that
will force wavers when it routs, or (ii) be forced to play at the enemy's
dictates of space (and often time). Assuming that you intend to force
march something, what will it be? The two likely options seem to be the
auxilia or the warriors; the former are loose D class and so just a magnet
for enemy cav; they're in small units, so vulnerable to shooting also.
The latter are more resistant, but also vulnerable to enemy mounted and a
larger investment of points/hitting power to lose. So I don't see either
as viable.

It's not as though you're playing Inca or Viking or something that can
survive without scouts and not care; so my first priority would be to get
some LI (and Romans usually get very decent LI, too).

2. Only one general is dodgy but might be OK here - although you have a
lot (4 mounted, 4 foot) of irregular strike units to prompt, and can only
rely on getting one (likely two) to go each bound. So I think a sub would
also be worthwhile.

What would I delete? I'd kill the artillery and sacrifice some MC,
probably. Yes, I understand the motive for using figures, and that's
fine; this advice is purely game-based.

3. So, what are you afraid of? The converse is 'what can you kill'? You
have a fair number of average lancer cav, which will be OK against loose
foot (although scared of missile foot, especially with nothing to shield
them - that may be the role of the auxilia, and that would possibly work).
Your Warriors are decent against close foot. But you have nothing to deal
with knights, elephants. Your regular HC is going to have to play
dance-and-hope with knights, as nothing else can face them; you have
nothing to face elephants with except for the auxilia who will be uneasy D
class.

I think that Romans in general should try to take advantage of being
regular, and have lots of small units of lights and cav, backed up by
bigger units of auxilia (although I expect that your 12-man units are for
historical, not game-based, reasons) and legions/foederati. So I would
ditch all of the MC, maybe one of the big HC units, and maybe even one (or
more) of the foederati foot, all in favour of more skirmishing power; I'd
make the auxilia bigger units (and buy two ranks of D); and I'd consider
having a D class auxilia bow block.

You also suffer from a lack of rough terrain troops - again, LI or better
LMI/LHI - although the morale of the auxilia is less likely to be a factor
there as fewer wavers likely. This is especially a problem given the
potential for being pinned back onto terrain without light troops.

Negative, mostly - sorry. As I said, i understand the reasons for
selecting these troops; I just think you are not playing to the army's
strengths.



E

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/20/2004 13:42:45 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
If anyone has an idea about wether these Reg D LMI can fight in bad
going and if there is a way to get the most out of them in that
specific situation I'd appreciate hearing it.>>

Of course they can...lol First, always be careful of taking just one
player's opinion on your army list. :)

Second, both for the screen battle and the terrain battle you have to decide
where you are going to fall in what I have learned to call the 'arms race'.
Reg D LMI are at the lower end of the terrain battle arms race, which is
totally ok, as long as you realize it. Anything like vikings or celtiberians or
slavs will wax these guys. BUT if you know you are there to counter and
skirmish
and make the terrain a place where, for not a lot of points, you keep him
from coming to grips with you then these are probably as cost effective as they
get. They can dart out and chase off a LC unit nearby and an LMI will keep him
from using an LI to deny *you* the terrain avenue. If he contests the
feature with real troops, you are in the block and avoid mode.

Jon


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

[John Murphy]

Thanks, Ewan. It is probably not the smartest thing for me to be
going into all this in a forum where all my oppoenents for the summer
(where this army will proably be used in a regional tourney) are
possibly reading it. But, heck, unlike me they are all good enough
players to pick this stuff apart at first sight on the table anyway
so at least this way I even the odds a bit by giving myself time and
an earful of advice to consider my options.

> 1. No light troops at all? You do have 25 scouts, so may not
often be
> outscouted, but your two options will be (i) force march something
that
> will force wavers when it routs, or (ii) be forced to play at the
enemy's
> dictates of space (and often time).
> It's not as though you're playing Inca or Viking or something that
can
> survive without scouts and not care; so my first priority would be
to get
> some LI (and Romans usually get very decent LI, too).

Interesting. First, I recognize even as the patzer I am that you are
probably correct here although bear in mind my reasons for putting
this list together the way it is too. However, even understanding
this I would very much like to know the thought process behind
deciding why (a) no lights to force march means playing at enemy's
dictates of space etc and (b) what is different about playing ths
army versus Incas or Vikings that they can survive without scouts and
not care (something I also like to do with Hundred Years War
English). It is possible I am relying too much on that experience and
I would like to know from a better player what kind of factors go
into really deciding wether this can be done for a particular army
and what the impacts are.

Just regarding out-scouting on its own my experience has led me to
believe that this is often over-sold. Sure if you set up your army in
a very unbalanced fashion it is nice to be able to disguise some of
it until you opponent commits. But there not always a real reason to
have to do this. So alot of times an out-scouted army is really at no
disadvantage.

So probably the biggest thing about being out-scouted is just giving
up the option to overload one flank or the other. Is that real
signifigant for this army? Maybe, I don't know. Cetainly open to
thoughts on this.

But aside from this the whole issue of absence of light troops in
general which you raised, and its impact on different types of
armies, is something I would like to hear alot more about.

> 2. Only one general is dodgy but might be OK here - although you
have a
> lot (4 mounted, 4 foot) of irregular strike units to prompt, and
can only
> rely on getting one (likely two) to go each bound. So I think a
sub would
> also be worthwhile.
> What would I delete? I'd kill the artillery and sacrifice some MC,
> probably. Yes, I understand the motive for using figures, and
that's
> fine; this advice is purely game-based.

Yeah, when I put this one on the table-top I am thinking the
artillery might offer the best place to begin saving points for
improvements. However, based on your other comments and my own
suspicions I think I would begin by getting one or two very small
very cheap LI units. Not sure I would sacrifice one of the lancers
for a sub, though I have not had the trouble of playing with only a
CinC before and maybe if I tried it I would change my mind about
really really needing another general. I _am_ hoping however that
orders and non-prompt conditions will permit some charges and only a
few will require actual prompts from the CinC. We will see if it
really works out that way.

Regarding the MC I would of course prefer them to be a rear rank for
the HC if Scott indicates that is permitted. But otherwise I will
probably try them this way at first, just to get to see them on the
table (there is actually no difference in the figures HC and MC
except the usual differences between individual irregular figure
paint jobs), and see what happens.

> 3. So, what are you afraid of? The converse is 'what can you
kill'? You
> have a fair number of average lancer cav, which will be OK against
loose
> foot (although scared of missile foot, especially with nothing to
shield
> them - that may be the role of the auxilia, and that would possibly
work).
> Your Warriors are decent against close foot. But you have nothing
to deal
> with knights, elephants. Your regular HC is going to have to play
> dance-and-hope with knights, as nothing else can face them; you have
> nothing to face elephants with except for the auxilia who will be
uneasy D
> class.

I would probably have to digest this paragraph a bit before being
able to provide a meaningful thoughtful response. There are a lot of
tactical issues raised here, and some are less than obvious to me
which is not say you are not absolutely correct I just would like to
know why and how before I put foot in mouth.

Just preliminarily, I get the proto-Byzantine versus knight part -
been there done that. Admitedly not the very best way to handle them
but as long as you do not roll short on an evade it kind of works. Of
course I only have 4 of these units so really large numbers of
knights (and there are... always... really large numbers of knights)
could _still_ be very rough.

So first question here has to be what else to do about large numbers
of knights. Second question is elephants. I guess I need to look at
the latter more closely. I notice that as soon as I stopped playing
all-mounted armies and started playing missile foot armies suddenly I
never face elephants anymore... so maybe I tend to disregard them
nowdays. Maybe part of that is the single-list tournament format too
which probably means that folks no longer have a "anti-knight" list
featuring elephants and a "anti-missile-foot" list with no elephants.
Instead if they take them at all they only take a few. Or maybe my
little world is just an odd sample of armies out there that for some
random chance just has not seen too many hefalumps lately.

Anyway, point is I need to digest elephant tactics a bit to respond
in any meaningful way to this one.

> I think that Romans in general should try to take advantage of being
> regular, and have lots of small units of lights and cav, backed up
by
> bigger units of auxilia (although I expect that your 12-man units
are for
> historical, not game-based, reasons) and legions/foederati. So I
would
> ditch all of the MC, maybe one of the big HC units, and maybe even
one (or
> more) of the foederati foot, all in favour of more skirmishing
power; I'd
> make the auxilia bigger units (and buy two ranks of D); and I'd
consider
> having a D class auxilia bow block.

This is certainly one way, maybe even the best way, to run Patrician
Romans. I could hardly suggest I would know a better way, including
the one I presented. But as you stated some of my reasons for how
this army is built are historical and not game-based.

And on that particular item you referenced, the size of the Auxilia
units, I do actually think that they have some advantage as small
units in that it is easier for them to be protected between other
units, and more flexible with more units for them to come out from
some gap somewhere and make a meaningful quick contribution to a
local situation or target of opportunity.

But I would probably still, in this case with this army, run them how
they painted even if it is not absolutely the most tweaked-up way to
play them for the very best result. Admittedly in Warrior as in
perhaps no other system this puts them at a definite disadvantage,
but they are also not the real emphasis of this army in my thinking.

> You also suffer from a lack of rough terrain troops - again, LI or
better
> LMI/LHI - although the morale of the auxilia is less likely to be a
factor
> there as fewer wavers likely. This is especially a problem given
the
> potential for being pinned back onto terrain without light troops.

I had hoped the Reg D LMI would at least be able to handle this in a
defensive posture. Haven't tried it myself so I have to presume you
are correct. But not sure how I would adjust.

Certainly a couple small cheap Reg LI units are going to be added
here but since they are the force-march skirmish role units that
really does not help with the terrain issue.

So this, also, is going to take some thought.

If anyone has an idea about wether these Reg D LMI can fight in bad
going and if there is a way to get the most out of them in that
specific situation I'd appreciate hearing it.

[John Murphy]

Good points. Thanks, Jon.

Sounds almost like an extension of my overall "D class" mindset -
Okay on the defensive or given certain opportunities if you can creat
them or are given them. Just don't push too hard against something
they have no business trying to cope with.

I have run Byz LC as Reg D before with kind of this approach. Not
that I don't recommend upgrading them as much as you can to be able
to counter better, but you just sometimes have to have the points or
list maxes for upgrades go somewhere else.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> both for the screen battle and the terrain battle you have to
decide
> where you are going to fall in what I have learned to call
the 'arms race'.
> if you know you are there to counter and skirmish
> and make the terrain a place where, for not a lot of points, you
keep him
> from coming to grips with you then these are probably as cost
effective as they
> get. They can dart out and chase off a LC unit nearby and an LMI
will keep him
> from using an LI to deny *you* the terrain avenue.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> anyone want to lend me an army for the Roman
> theme? Don't really care what, although it would be nice were
it not
> completely hopeless!

By the way, Ewan, nobody has spoken for my Patricians if you would
like use them in the 15mm theme. Not sure how completely hopeless the
actual mix of figures I have really is - but probably less with you
at the helm than with myself. If you want to play 15's (I have
decided for certain now I will be doing EIR in 25's) and you think
you can do something with these guys, they are not a bad looking army
(in fact, they are far and away the nicest 15's I have although they
are maybe not going any painting competitions or anything) and you
are welcome to give them a test drive. I could do the re-basing and
just bring the whole mess o' lead and let you figure out how you want
to run them.