Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 12:08:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
All in all, sound slike a pretty historical matchup tp
me. If the Picts roll well and the Halberdiers don't
the first round of combat, then it becomes a pushing
match, but then anything can and will happen with
random dice rolling.

That is the point. If the Picts can pull off the impetuous charge they are
still in trouble. If they can't, they are hopeless. This is a signifigant
change from requiring regulars to try and defuse impetuous charges, as impetuous
the barbarians have a good chance, non impetuous they don't. So now its just'
Go ahead, charge me impetuously. Make my day.' The change makes such things as
'unease' rather irrelevent.
I just found that surprising, as much of the heart of the game system,
though it is still there, simply no longer matters. That was all I was saying.
-
Tom



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

[Todd Schneider]

Tom,

I would submit if your relying on an Imeptuous charge
against an enemy body armed with 2HCT to try and win
the day, the game mechanics aren't an issue.

Against some bodies, Impetuous JLS Troops have a
better than even chance of winning the first bound of
combat, but then, As others have repeated, there is a
reason the JLS armed troop went out of style as
warfare progressed.

I have to ask though, is there a particular reasons
(or historical note) that JLS armed troops should be
winning these sort of contests? Not trying to be
snarky (honest!) but if you provided some examples,
I'd appreciate it.

Todd

--- Quahog25@... wrote:


---------------------------------
In a message dated 3/3/2005 12:08:36 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
All in all, sound slike a pretty historical matchup tp
me. If the Picts roll well and the Halberdiers don't
the first round of combat, then it becomes a pushing
match, but then anything can and will happen with
random dice rolling.

That is the point. If the Picts can pull off the
impetuous charge they are
still in trouble. If they can't, they are hopeless.
This is a signifigant
change from requiring regulars to try and defuse
impetuous charges, as impetuous
the barbarians have a good chance, non impetuous they
don't. So now its just'
Go ahead, charge me impetuously. Make my day.' The
change makes such things as
'unease' rather irrelevent.
I just found that surprising, as much of the heart
of the game system,
though it is still there, simply no longer matters.
That was all I was saying. -
Tom



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> I would submit if your relying on an Imeptuous charge
> against an enemy body armed with 2HCT to try and win
> the day, the game mechanics aren't an issue.

Well - if you get your best troops impetuous against the enemy's dregs
halted, and find that you're losing, the *mechanics* may be working as
intended but the army / troop type is in potential trouble.

***

On 1200 vs 1600 - I like both. I think of them as being similar to
the current 15mm vs 25mm difference in terms of army design, but I
agree that in both cases there are opportunities with a smaller
troops:space ratio that are more difficult to create in a more crowded
environment.

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/4/2005 6:13:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
I have to ask though, is there a particular reasons
(or historical note) that JLS armed troops should be
winning these sort of contests? Not trying to be
snarky (honest!) but if you provided some examples,
I'd appreciate it.*******

Not snarky at all, I'm always up for a good discussion. Obviously i can't
give you any more examples of the Celts in their heyday beating halberdiers
than you can of giving me the opposite. Just dont fall into the trap that
military history was some sort of linear progression. Had Alexander been at
Hastings, on either side, their would be little doubt of the outcome.
I just can't understand this beleif that the halberd was some wonder
weapon. ' Well sure- if you charge into HALBERDS!' Huh? Other than the Swiss,
(who
probably would have been pretty formidable armed with wind chimes) what did a
halberd armed army ever do? Can you imagine Caesar saying 'Ohmigod- i hope I
don't run into any Flemish Burghers or Italian Communal militias!'
When you read descriptions of High to Late medieval battles, from
Bouvines to Courtrai to the battles throughout the 14th century, as the longbows
and
pikes and knights and crossbows are fighting it out, there is always this ' Oh
yeah, there were some halberd guys there too.'
There is nothing 'elite' about MI halberds. They combined a long spear
with a can-opener for use against heavily armoured foes. Yes, i can see them
being particularly good against EH and SH troops, but that's about it. - Tom


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

[Todd Schneider]

My responses at the ***
--- Quahog25@... wrote:
---------------------------------
In a message dated 3/4/2005 6:13:14 PM Eastern
Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
I have to ask though, is there a particular reasons
(or historical note) that JLS armed troops should be
winning these sort of contests? Not trying to be
snarky (honest!) but if you provided some examples,
I'd appreciate it.

Not snarky at all, I'm always up for a good
discussion. Obviously i can't
give you any more examples of the Celts in their
heyday beating halberdiers
than you can of giving me the opposite. Just dont fall
into the trap that
military history was some sort of linear progression.

***Military History doen't have any linear
progression? You know,I am looking for those Loose
Order JLS troops that pervade everyones armies these
days, but with the exception of the Ethiopians in the
mid 30', I am not haveing much luck The other
thread going on right now (Other than the Reg B One
that is) is about the arms race. Who can build a
bigger spear, a beter chariot, a more well armored
lancer. Jon's anology is the use of a baseball bat in
little league pick up games. In order to see who bats
first, one team captain tosses a bat in the air and
catches it. The other team captain but his hand on
top of the firsts, who then puts his hand on top and
so on...and the last guy who gets his hand fully on
the bat chooses.
Warrior, and warfare,has been this type of
progression.
I have a LI B Guy.
Well, you give your LI B guy a shield. I Give my LI
Bow Guy a Shield, and more armor...and so it goes.


Had Alexander been at
Hastings, on either side, their would be little doubt
of the outcome.


***I Agree. ALexander would have been pasted at
Hastings too. ;-)

I just can't understand this beleif that the halberd
was some wonder weapon. ' Well sure- if you charge
into HALBERDS!' Huh? Other than the Swiss, (who
probably would have been pretty formidable armed with
wind chimes) what did a
halberd armed army ever do? Can you imagine Caesar
saying 'Ohmigod- i hope I
don't run into any Flemish Burghers or Italian
Communal militias!'

***I'll be honest, I don't know if your trying to be
serious, or funny. The Halberd was the result of the
aforementioned arms race, where the spear was found to
be inadequate against armored troopers. If caesar,
somehow ala Eric Flint's machinations, ran into
Burgundian SHK and Longbow men, I suspect the results
he would have would be the same you'd get in a Warrior
Game. And we all know how well Roman Legionaires
survive against knights.
Also, one of the primary wepons of the Oriental Armies
was the 2HCT. Now, "everyday" reading about the
explouts of various Chinese Armies and their battles
is hard to come buy (in fact, if anyone has any books
to put forth, I'd be interested in a few of them), but
the 2HCT, in various forms.

When you read descriptions of High to Late
medieval battles, from
Bouvines to Courtrai to the battles throughout the
14th century, as the longbows and
pikes and knights and crossbows are fighting it out,
there is always this ' Oh
yeah, there were some halberd guys there too.'
There is nothing 'elite' about MI halberds. They
combined a long spear
with a can-opener for use against heavily armoured
foes. Yes, i can see them
being particularly good against EH and SH troops, but
that's about it. - Tom

***I am not making the "Elite" reference. Is there
somehow a correlation between the fact they are one of
the better all around weapons in Warrior that the
troops who use them must be better in terms if
training and skill?

Todd


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Charles Yaw]

>> Just dont fallinto the trap that military history was some sort
>>of linear progression.
>
> ***Military History doen't have any linear
> progression? You know,I am looking for those Loose
> Order JLS troops that pervade everyones armies these
> days, but with the exception of the Ethiopians in the
> mid 30',

Todd, there is a difference between Linear progression and
progression. History is certainly not always linear but there is
alway progression, be is good or bad.


>> Had Alexander been at Hastings, on either side, their would be
>>little doubt of the outcome.
>
> ***I Agree. ALexander would have been pasted at
> Hastings too. ;-)

No, what you don't account for is the number of men Alexander who
have commanded (assuming we are using time travel) Armies tended to
be large from Alexander's time through the Roman Empire. This was
because of good supply and the fact that large, well organized
Empires were backing them up. Armies during the Dark Ages were
small, due the the same reasons, there were no Empires and Countries
as we know them did not yet exist. Alexander would have out
numbered both sides. And who is to say Macadonian Pikemen would not
have fared well against Harold's axmen or William's lightly armoured
knights? Both Greek and Roman armies were much better orgainized
than anything after until maybe Napoleanic times.
>
> >I just can't understand this beleif that the halberd
>> was some wonder weapon. ' Well sure- if you charge
>> into HALBERDS!' Huh? Other than the Swiss, (who
>> probably would have been pretty formidable armed with
>> wind chimes) what did a
>> halberd armed army ever do? Can you imagine Caesar
>> saying 'Ohmigod- i hope I
>> don't run into any Flemish Burghers or Italian
>? Communal militias!'
>
> ***I'll be honest, I don't know if your trying to be
> serious, or funny. The Halberd was the result of the
> aforementioned arms race, where the spear was found to
> be inadequate against armored troopers. If caesar,
> somehow ala Eric Flint's machinations, ran into
> Burgundian SHK and Longbow men, I suspect the results
> he would have would be the same you'd get in a Warrior
> Game. And we all know how well Roman Legionaires
> survive against knights.

You can't seriously make any reference to History based on a game.
I love to play Warrior, but I never pretend it represents real
conditions. And, on the real battlefield, if I had to bet, it would
have been on Ceasar.

Charles

> Also, one of the primary wepons of the Oriental Armies
> was the 2HCT. Now, "everyday" reading about the
> explouts of various Chinese Armies and their battles
> is hard to come buy (in fact, if anyone has any books
> to put forth, I'd be interested in a few of them), but
> the 2HCT, in various forms.
>
>> When you read descriptions of High to Late
>> medieval battles, from
>> Bouvines to Courtrai to the battles throughout the
>> 14th century, as the longbows and
>> pikes and knights and crossbows are fighting it out,
>> there is always this ' Oh
>> yeah, there were some halberd guys there too.'
>> There is nothing 'elite' about MI halberds. They
>> combined a long spear
>> with a can-opener for use against heavily armoured
>> foes. Yes, i can see them
>> being particularly good against EH and SH troops, but
>> that's about it. - Tom
>
> ***I am not making the "Elite" reference. Is there
> somehow a correlation between the fact they are one of
> the better all around weapons in Warrior that the
> troops who use them must be better in terms if
> training and skill?
>
> Todd
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.

[Todd Schneider]

Charles,

Perhaps I am not understanding the use of the word
linear then. That's my fault.

Any other sort of what if, taking place in a tactical
vaccumm devoid of terrain and other issues, is pretty
pointless. As is taking any historical commander out
of his own time element and leaping him forward a
couple of hundred years or more. It speculation, and
one which Warrior does (I think) a very good job in
recreating. Which is one of the reasons I enjoy
playing it.

Todd

--- riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:


---------------------------------

>> Just dont fallinto the trap that military history
was some sort
>>of linear progression.
>
> ***Military History doen't have any linear
> progression? You know,I am looking for those Loose
> Order JLS troops that pervade everyones armies these
> days, but with the exception of the Ethiopians in
the
> mid 30',

Todd, there is a difference between Linear progression
and
progression. History is certainly not always linear
but there is
alway progression, be is good or bad.


>> Had Alexander been at Hastings, on either side,
their would be
>>little doubt of the outcome.
>
> ***I Agree. ALexander would have been pasted at
> Hastings too. ;-)

No, what you don't account for is the number of men
Alexander who
have commanded (assuming we are using time travel)
Armies tended to
be large from Alexander's time through the Roman
Empire. This was
because of good supply and the fact that large, well
organized
Empires were backing them up. Armies during the Dark
Ages were
small, due the the same reasons, there were no Empires
and Countries
as we know them did not yet exist. Alexander would
have out
numbered both sides. And who is to say Macadonian
Pikemen would not
have fared well against Harold's axmen or William's
lightly armoured
knights? Both Greek and Roman armies were much better
orgainized
than anything after until maybe Napoleanic times.
>
> >I just can't understand this beleif that the
halberd
>> was some wonder weapon. ' Well sure- if you charge
>> into HALBERDS!' Huh? Other than the Swiss, (who
>> probably would have been pretty formidable armed
with
>> wind chimes) what did a
>> halberd armed army ever do? Can you imagine Caesar
>> saying 'Ohmigod- i hope I
>> don't run into any Flemish Burghers or Italian
>? Communal militias!'
>
> ***I'll be honest, I don't know if your trying to be
> serious, or funny. The Halberd was the result of
the
> aforementioned arms race, where the spear was found
to
> be inadequate against armored troopers. If caesar,
> somehow ala Eric Flint's machinations, ran into
> Burgundian SHK and Longbow men, I suspect the
results
> he would have would be the same you'd get in a
Warrior
> Game. And we all know how well Roman Legionaires
> survive against knights.

You can't seriously make any reference to History
based on a game.
I love to play Warrior, but I never pretend it
represents real
conditions. And, on the real battlefield, if I had to
bet, it would
have been on Ceasar.

Charles

> Also, one of the primary wepons of the Oriental
Armies
> was the 2HCT. Now, "everyday" reading about the
> explouts of various Chinese Armies and their battles
> is hard to come buy (in fact, if anyone has any
books
> to put forth, I'd be interested in a few of them),
but
> the 2HCT, in various forms.
>
>> When you read descriptions of High to Late
>> medieval battles, from
>> Bouvines to Courtrai to the battles throughout the
>> 14th century, as the longbows and
>> pikes and knights and crossbows are fighting it
out,
>> there is always this ' Oh
>> yeah, there were some halberd guys there too.'
>> There is nothing 'elite' about MI halberds.
They
>> combined a long spear
>> with a can-opener for use against heavily armoured
>> foes. Yes, i can see them
>> being particularly good against EH and SH troops,
but
>> that's about it. - Tom
>
> ***I am not making the "Elite" reference. Is there
> somehow a correlation between the fact they are one
of
> the better all around weapons in Warrior that the
> troops who use them must be better in terms if
> training and skill?
>
> Todd
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/6/2005 5:04:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ewan McNay
writes:
Second, I would still rather take a late roman legion than a bunch of
halberdiers against the impetuous barbarians, so I'm not sure that your
example above is the best, despite the validity of the general point

I stated previously that the factors are the same against the heavy
legionary as against the medium halberdier. However, the difference is that the
legionary is an infantry killing specialist, weak against cavalry, while the
cheaper halberdier is fine whether fighting barbarians or charging cavalry.
So I would also rather have the Romans against Picts, because that is
their specialty, and should be a bad matchup for the barbarians. But I wouldn't
rather have them against Normans. This is where the 'play balance ' issue comes
in. The halberd is good against everybody, and to make the impetuous charge
useless against them was simply what surprised me. - Tom



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

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/6/2005 5:04:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, Edward Sturges
writes:
Speaking from English experience the effect on Scottish foot at
Flodden (once the pike blocks had been brought to a halt) seems to
have been very significant - both to the armoured front ranks and the
less armoured rear ones. My book withd an account of Flodden is
under dustsheets.****

Indeed, the performance of the bills vs the pikes at Flodden was very good.
And one of the few examples we have of polearms vs a 'classical' system.
Frankly, it seems to be an aberration, as, in the contemporary
Swiss/lansknecht things the halberd NEVER attempted to stand up to pikes
frontally, though
there were plenty around, skulking in the back waiting for the pikes to get
locked up. As the pike became more dominant, over the next 20 ears the halberd
disappeared, so its safe to say they really weren't very useful straight up
against pike.
While Barker delights in quoting the primary source of how the bills '
disppointed the pikes of their points' or something like that, I think ihis
emphasis is just an example of his unabashed bias against all things Scottish.
We
are talking about Scots who had recently imported pikes and had just been
taught the new system, which they had never used in battle, against the tried
and
true Billmen system from the Wars of the Roses. For all that, Flodden was a
very near run thing. - Tom


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

[joncleaves]

Tom said: The halberd is good against everybody, and to make the impetuous
charge
useless against them was simply what surprised me.>>

I disagree. As the primary playtester of Warrior, here’s my take on the “
Pict-Halberdier� issue. I would like to refute the idea that somehow 2HCT
makes impetuous charges useless.

You know my opinion on isolated matchups. But if we use them, let’s use
them correctly.

First, you have to make these determinations on a single element frontage.
You can’t get a statistically correct sample from uneven frontages because
you introduce extra variables into the test. You also can’t use ‘units’
to
test a matchup because units pay command factors, which are representations of
command and control articulation and not of relative value.

Secondly you have to realize that an ‘even-up’ matchup is exactly what a
player should NOT be looking for in a battle, but is only sufficient to test
the effects of various formations upon one another.

Ok, having said all that, the real matchup is for every element of Reg C MI
2HCT and Sh, the Irr C LMI JLS Sh guy should get 2 1/3 elements *on the same
frontage*.


Ok, so I am quite aware that many tourney players recoil in horror from the
idea of taking units into combat more than 2 ranks deep. “You’re only
getting ½ of the CPF from the ranks beyond the second, Jon and with most
weapons
you get no benefit from those ranks.� So?, says I. A four rank deep, 2E
wide
LMI JLS unit can take people on its frontage for a similar amount of points
that it can’t in other formations/sizes. Mark makes this point here often.

Charging 800 steady halberdiers with 600 javelinmen makes more sense to you?
It’s not the game’s fault that tourney players try and min-max their units
for the quick kill, instead of trying to mass and pile on as their
historical counterparts would have. Some of the attacks seen on the tourney
table
would make an historical general cringe.

Warrior balances lists and formations and weapons and rules based on how
battles were actually fought between historical opponents, so isolated matchups
are not the main tool we use. When we do use them, it has to be
statistically valid. I just wanted to folks to know that while I read every
mail on
here, I don’t take into account the ones that show matchups on more than 1E
front
or that include command factors or that use ‘open-tourney-standard unit sizes
’ or that are between ahistorical opponents.

Just my $0.02

J

Greetings

I would not disagree that Flodden was unusual - I would not rate the
Scots that highly and they were apparently suffering from a number of
problems:
- having suffered casualties from English artillery (their own
having proven less than totally effective)
- one source (I can't remember where) has some of the Scots pike
columns hitting a small stream they were not aware of just in front
of the English positions - others refer to the difficulty of keeping
formation on the slope and in the poor weather.

In Warrior terms the Scots pike columns would certainly be disordered
when they hit the English battles.

The Border pikes who charged the younger Howard (more successfully)
could be considered on Wait orders, suffering 2+ CPF from artillery
and (possibly) inlcuding some Irr A?

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Quahog25@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/6/2005 5:04:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Edward Sturges
> writes:
> Speaking from English experience the effect on Scottish foot at
> Flodden (once the pike blocks had been brought to a halt) seems to
> have been very significant - both to the armoured front ranks and
the
> less armoured rear ones. My book withd an account of Flodden is
> under dustsheets.****
>
> Indeed, the performance of the bills vs the pikes at Flodden was
very good.
> And one of the few examples we have of polearms vs a 'classical'
system.
> Frankly, it seems to be an aberration, as, in the contemporary
> Swiss/lansknecht things the halberd NEVER attempted to stand up to
pikes frontally, though
> there were plenty around, skulking in the back waiting for the
pikes to get
> locked up. As the pike became more dominant, over the next 20 ears
the halberd
> disappeared, so its safe to say they really weren't very useful
straight up
> against pike.
> While Barker delights in quoting the primary source of how the
bills '
> disppointed the pikes of their points' or something like that, I
think ihis
> emphasis is just an example of his unabashed bias against all
things Scottish. We
> are talking about Scots who had recently imported pikes and had
just been
> taught the new system, which they had never used in battle, against
the tried and
> true Billmen system from the Wars of the Roses. For all that,
Flodden was a
> very near run thing. - Tom
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]