Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

True, you don't have to shoot...and can stand behind Pavise if faced with
superior firepower. However, I'd likely rather have shields on my close
order shooters and then not fire if I will be facing such situations, given
the dramatic improvement counted shielded has for hand-to-hand results.

I should have big enough close order units such that enemy fire is at the
worst going to halt me (2 CPF0.

Let's look at the Early Burgundian list...one I'm surprised someone isn't
bringing to tournaments. You can have your shooters with LB or CB, close or
loose order, and they start out very cheap (Reg D mediums). LB can get 2HCW
and/or Shield, CB can have pavise, you can upgrade to heavier armor and some
to Reg C.

How about a unit like this:
6E unit, 5E are Reg D, 1 front rank E is Reg C, half HI LB,Sh, half MI CB.
This costs 98 points, and can even get stakes! I consider it far better than
an entirely CB unit with Pavise instead of Shield.

On that Early Burgundian list, you can also get Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh (early
period)...

Frank


********** More on Pavisiers, etc. **************
Thanks for taking a look Frank.

A couple items I noticed, which are what started me wondering about this.

Pavisier crossbowmen do not _have_ to shoot to remain in cover like
longbows do to remain in skirmish. In fact, if Pa do _not_ shoot they count
not only as cover but also as shielded to enemy missiles. This has
implications in not being worn down by enemy skirmishers just to avoid
being shot up by them.

If they _do_ shoot they are no worse off than longbowmen, cover=skirmish
and neither count shielded while shooting - plus you can make a single rank
of Pa CB to HI which has no benefit to LB unless you do the whole expensive
unit. And if I recall without looking it up they have about the same effect
and range (trading numbers for factors) against HI and better against a lot
of other stuff.

Mobility is less critical with something that can fire out to 240p with
120p for effective. However, that, and the inability get away, _do_ present
their own vulnerability although the lack of waver testing for mounted
charges is a big help.

Anyway, while it may work I am not entirely sure I would want them in place
of longbows, I have grown to like those, but maybe a viable addition if you
can avoid merely presenting a choice of targets to the enemy.

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/

[scott holder]

I've played the E Burgundians in 25mm twice at Darrells (vs Free Company).
Nifty list. Much more of an strike and whack army, unlike its later version
which is purely counterpunching.


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson [mailto:franktrevorgilson@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:45 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Pavisiers, close vs. loose missile, more


True, you don't have to shoot...and can stand behind Pavise if faced with
superior firepower. However, I'd likely rather have shields on my close
order shooters and then not fire if I will be facing such situations, given
the dramatic improvement counted shielded has for hand-to-hand results.

I should have big enough close order units such that enemy fire is at the
worst going to halt me (2 CPF0.

Let's look at the Early Burgundian list...one I'm surprised someone isn't
bringing to tournaments. You can have your shooters with LB or CB, close or
loose order, and they start out very cheap (Reg D mediums). LB can get 2HCW
and/or Shield, CB can have pavise, you can upgrade to heavier armor and some
to Reg C.

How about a unit like this:
6E unit, 5E are Reg D, 1 front rank E is Reg C, half HI LB,Sh, half MI CB.
This costs 98 points, and can even get stakes! I consider it far better than
an entirely CB unit with Pavise instead of Shield.

On that Early Burgundian list, you can also get Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh (early
period)...

Frank


********** More on Pavisiers, etc. **************
Thanks for taking a look Frank.

A couple items I noticed, which are what started me wondering about this.

Pavisier crossbowmen do not _have_ to shoot to remain in cover like
longbows do to remain in skirmish. In fact, if Pa do _not_ shoot they count
not only as cover but also as shielded to enemy missiles. This has
implications in not being worn down by enemy skirmishers just to avoid
being shot up by them.

If they _do_ shoot they are no worse off than longbowmen, cover=skirmish
and neither count shielded while shooting - plus you can make a single rank
of Pa CB to HI which has no benefit to LB unless you do the whole expensive
unit. And if I recall without looking it up they have about the same effect
and range (trading numbers for factors) against HI and better against a lot
of other stuff.

Mobility is less critical with something that can fire out to 240p with
120p for effective. However, that, and the inability get away, _do_ present
their own vulnerability although the lack of waver testing for mounted
charges is a big help.

Anyway, while it may work I am not entirely sure I would want them in place
of longbows, I have grown to like those, but maybe a viable addition if you
can avoid merely presenting a choice of targets to the enemy.

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar - FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/





Yahoo! Groups Links

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> rather have shields on my close
> order shooters

Just not an option in the armies I am looking at, unless I use close-
order longbowmen? But then they have to drop the shields to shoot
anyway and dont get skirmish. The nice thing about the Pa CB is at
least they get _some_ protection if they fire (bascally eq to
skirmish order against most stuff) and even more, by counting Sh, if
they decide not to.

Oddly enough, I'll let it slip I am looking for the NICT at the folks
on the page directly opposite your E. Burg. (Free Company) as well as
going over to the dark side and playing Early Medieval French with
the Irreg A's!

But my approach to both these would be similar to my approach with
HYWE, just adjusted for the differences in types of missile support
and types of killers.

Not to say that really works either - although it has at times. But
it is a starting point to which I have made some additions hopefully
to mitigate some of the problems I was having.

Basically having looked at Early Burgundians there is not a lot of
difference between how I would build them and how I mgiht build Free
Company except I like the way FC knights come out between Reg gens
that dismount well and the rest Irregs that don't but are cheap and I
like some of the light troops (JLS/Sh LI) you get with FC that you do
not with EBurg at least at first glance.

But FC doesn't seem to have to have enough LB(!) without adding a
couple units of CB/Pa.

That is my thinking anyway.

[John Murphy]

Scott,

This has been making me wonder, because you stated it like it was so
obvious, would it be possible to explain and elaborate a bit on this
comment? It would be very instructional for me as someone developing
beginning playing styles with some very similar armies, and maybe for
someone else too.

If you don't mind when you get the time...

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I've played the E Burgundians in 25mm twice at Darrells (vs Free
Company). Nifty list. Much more of an strike and whack army, unlike
its later version which is purely counterpunching.

[scott holder]

Hmmmmm, I'm never the best one to answer these questions since most of the
Warrior intelligentsia has different (and better) ways to pick apart lists.

I look at the E Burg as essentially a 3 troop type army: Irr knights, pike, LB.
And even though the pike aren't many, in 25mm, I don't need many. I use them
aggresively, tending to pin or funnel with them, then whack with a boatload of
Irr knights. The LB guys are purely supportive, nice supportive, but purely
supportive. I think Jon said it recently in that if you ever arm these guys
with 2HCW, it leads you to think you can fight people you'd be better off
avoiding, hence, the LB guys are there to suck of shots against my strike force
as it moves forward or to provide some marginal flank support for the pikes or
if I need some terrain troops, they'll do okay.

Yeah, no skirmishers, no scouting points, no nothing along those lines although
you've probably got enough LI CBmen to keep the opponent obvious. And if you
really want to work on the "pin with pike, strike with knights" concept, go with
the Late sub-period and buy the Swiss.

The Burg Ordonnance is counterpunching purely because it's sooooooo expensive,
well, at least the way I buy it. And the knights are Reg which means a
general's leading the charge somewhere and you're usually counterpunching when
it comes to tossing a general into harm's way. I usually uparmor and upmorale
the LBmen in this because I need them to have some staying power since I'm not
necessarily setting up loads of shooting funnels and overlapping targets,
probably a mistake given current conventional wisdom but one that's served me
fairly okay over the years with this list.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 11:15 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pavisiers, close vs. loose missile, more


Scott,

This has been making me wonder, because you stated it like it was so
obvious, would it be possible to explain and elaborate a bit on this
comment? It would be very instructional for me as someone developing
beginning playing styles with some very similar armies, and maybe for
someone else too.

If you don't mind when you get the time...

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I've played the E Burgundians in 25mm twice at Darrells (vs Free
Company). Nifty list. Much more of an strike and whack army, unlike
its later version which is purely counterpunching.





Yahoo! Groups Links

[John Murphy]

Okay, I kind of see what you mean now. Sounds like the biggest
difference boils down to fewer more-expensive regular knights and the
changes in the way you build supporting troops for them versus for
the larger number of irregulars.

Oddly enough as you describe the two I think I would be more
comfortable with a counter-punching army than an outright attacking
one. I think the main reason, although I always pictured myself as
liking attacking, is with an attacking army, as you describe it, you
basically committ from the get-go to when and where and how - and try
to be sure you have enough of the right kinds of troops to pull it
off at that point and time and then exploit it. With a counter-
punching army you have much more durable supports but fewer "killers"
so you need, and want, to be more cirumspect in choosing your targets
and therefore this happens a bit further into the game - also since
your smaller attacking force doesn't have the numbers to keep rolling
along for more than a few bounds once committed.

Am I on the right track towards understanding this?

Odd, because on the very surface all these HYW/WotR-era armies seem
so similar in overall concept, and the thing I like about all of them
is that I think most of their weaknesses are things I can live with -
weaknesses recognized but apparently acceptable to me in trade for
their advantages. But I guess when you play a few different ones
enough times, or have a bit more ability when looking over the lists,
you pick up the differences.

The addition of pikes in some of these is something I have not really
worked out yet. Not sure I am ready for it although I can see it
would be a good complimentary arm (no duh) to the lances and
longbows. Especially in the Swiss form - though the late sub-period
really turns your knights and back-rankers into mush for the E Burg
but hey that also means they are cheaper.

> I usually uparmor and upmorale the LBmen in this because I need
them to have some staying power since I'm not necessarily setting up
loads of shooting funnels and overlapping targets, probably a mistake
given current conventional wisdom but one that's served me fairly
okay over the years with this list.

I am clearly missing something here in my play. Can someone
explain "setting up shooting funnels and overlapping targets" for me?

Is this somehow related to angling one's line in oppoisite directions
at various points to combine fire on a target? If so how do you
conceal your intention or manage the dead zones created? Or do I have
it all wrong?

[scott holder]

I am clearly missing something here in my play. Can someone
explain "setting up shooting funnels and overlapping targets" for me?

>Other more adroit players will certainly step forward to explain this.

Is this somehow related to angling one's line in oppoisite directions
at various points to combine fire on a target? If so how do you
conceal your intention or manage the dead zones created? Or do I have
it all wrong?

>Not really in opposite but in mutually overlapping "zones of fire". This is
where two school of thoughts collide in terms of how to use LBmen. One school
is the 6E units provide more integral firepower and can also suck up shots
better. The second school is the 4E units can move and glide and setup more of
these overlapping zones of fire so that the opponent needs to manage where he
goes and how he attacks *very* carefully.

>Funneling is my word for either "forcing" a player into another area of the
battlefield where, presumably (but definitely not always) I'm ready with
something. I like the pike for this function since within period, they're good
standup troops. Obviously out of period, you have all kinds of issues in terms
of opposing elephants or the occasional barbarian foot troop that's designed to
whomp on pikes. That's where the support guys come in, particularly the LBmen
since they might be able to strip off via support shooting some of the
advantages. But then the smart opponent will attempt to get rid of your support
guys in a situation like this and then beat up on the pin unit, in this case the
pike.

>I don't do any of the above consistently well mind you.

scott

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:

...I think the main reason, although I always pictured myself as
> liking attacking, is with an attacking army, as you describe it,
you
> basically committ from the get-go to when and where and how - and
try
> to be sure you have enough of the right kinds of troops to pull it
> off at that point and time and then exploit it. With a counter-
> punching army you have much more durable supports but
fewer "killers"
> so you need, and want, to be more cirumspect in choosing your
targets
> and therefore this happens a bit further into the game - also since
> your smaller attacking force doesn't have the numbers to keep
rolling
> along for more than a few bounds once committed.

John,
I am what some might refer to as an attacking player, as I tend to
run alot of IrrgA so must attack. As Scott described it, some armies
are forced into and thereby force the general to punt on first
bound. This is actually a good thing with many armies. However, my
feelings on the differences between agressive counter punching and
attacking is the differences created by terrain, army composition,
and personal reluctance/willingness to risk.

Many of the top guns are NOT risk takers in the flambouyant sense, as
they will not attack against odds. Most are counterpunchers most of
the time, so when two better players get together they tend to spar
around and attempt to set up a 1-2 punch or some other localized
attack while thwarting the same in return. IMO the better way of
differentiating is calculating style "counterpuncher" or
reckless "attacker". Don't be fooled by my names, as reckless has
much merit, but the merit is equaled by the danger as you might
guess. :)

Any player will be either calculating or reckless given the game,
opponant, or time/table size/point totals involved. For example,
when playing (in a tournament) against someone of obviously less
skills I will become very very reckless knowing that my opponant will
probably not be able to counter massive wave attacks of irreg A HC.

If playing someone of unknown skills, I will be more calculating but
still aggressive posturing so that reckless can happen quickly.

If playing someone of respectable skills, I will be even more
calculating to the point that it would be difficult to become
reckless even if the opportunity presented itself. This is the level
at which most seasoned tournament level gamers exist.

The consistent champions like Mark, Ewan, Bill, Derek etc.--these
guys will usually not even consider reckless, and reckless will not
work against them barring any crazy dice error runs. This is the
point we are all attempting to assend to. It is essentially
counterpunching very aggressively. None will launch a cavalry charge
without clear advantage, and in many ways this is the symbol of the
countercharge tactical doctrine.

Just thought I'd blather for a while.

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
> The consistent champions -- these guys will usually not even
consider reckless, and reckless will not work against them barring any
crazy dice error runs. This is the point we are all attempting to
assend to. It is essentially counterpunching very aggressively. None
will launch a cavalry charge without clear advantage, and in many ways
this is the symbol of the countercharge tactical doctrine.
>
> Just thought I'd blather for a while.

Oh, more worthwhile than blather, I think.

Ad I agree with much of this. But a lot of it is situation-dependent.
At PointCon, Dave M comprehensively out-played me in the early- and
mid-game so that in order to have a chance of a win, I had to become
essentially reckless on one part of the table - but here the
definition of 'reckless' is a little twisted, as it's not 'very likely
to win' but 'has some hope of winning'. Roman auxilia plus bow-block
have some chances against IrrA SHK, but it's not the way to bet large
sums. On the other hand, if Dave had the game such that he was
getting a reasonably big win already, those SHK would have declined
the bait. I think this kind of 'chance on both sides' is the norm for
many players. You are right that the reason that champions win the
games that they do is by consistently setting up the probabilities so
that rather than being 50% or even 60%, the point(s) of contact are as
close to 100% guaranteed to win on their side - but against someone of
equal skill, and especially in the context of a tournament where big
wins are needed, it's better to take 40% or even 20% chance of 5-3
than 100% of 1-2. I actually think that there are some players for
whom this is a weakness - who will deny themselves the chance to get
points if it means increasing their oppponent's expected point-return
at the same time. This is a behaviour which is commonly demonstrated
in economic 'game theory' experiments despite being completely
irrational!*

E

* Strictly, the irrationality is only complete if each game is
considered in isolation. Otherwise, one can argue that the creation
of a behaviour-expectation in your 'opponent' has value that is not
measured by the score metric. But I think that's minimal at best in a
situation where army match-ups alter so widely between tournaments,
and meeting any given opponent is reasonably rare.

[John Murphy]

Hmmm... maybe I am just adjusting my level of recklessness then to
the fact everyone I play is, still, a much better and more
experienced Warrior player than I am?

Odd though when you look through the NICT lists there are still a few
that appear to me very obviously charge-forward-recklessly oriented.
My guess is from what you are saying though that they are not played
that way at that level.

At least until bound 2!

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/22/2004 3:59:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> Otherwise, one can argue that the creation
> of a behaviour-expectation in your 'opponent' has value
> that is not
> measured by the score metric.>>

I know I would argue this. An excellent observation. It has tremendous
value....