Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Perhaps you are correct, I just remember having more units than you and tried to
gain an advantage. Perhaps I just got tired of trying to outmaneuver such a wily
opponent as you and threw it up to the dice gods. . . ! I think that was my Arab
Empire army wasn't it? I know we were both shocked by my dice that game.
Kelly

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
Kelly,

I believe you remember the game differently; you
charged the pike w/ two turns left in the game after
you piddled around for 2 1/2 hours on the field as I
pushed to gain contact. Maybe I shouldn't have pushed
so hard I would never have met the irreg A EHC.

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> I believe in this case, victory went to the Insanely
> bold! My charge came early in the game! I knew a
> game with Todd would be brutal and decided to go
> nuts while my army was fresh, using my best verses
> his best as it were! Luckily Ahab, lived to tell his
> grandchildren!
>
>
> Kelly
>
> "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
> While the pikes win on even rolls a mere + 2 swing
> of
> the dice and the EHC are rolling the pikes back. I
> see + 2 swings of the dice all the time and that is
> scary considering how historically pike held off
> countless charges against SHK nevermind mere EHC. I
> know it's a game, but... lance armed cav is scary.
>
> >Actually, in the ancient sense, there are *no* data
> points upon which to make this observation. I'm
> unaware of any instance where cav (not counting
> expendables) charged pike in the Alexander on down
> to the Ptolemies era. Now, maybe there was an
> instance in a Pontic context but again, I'm unaware
> of it.
>
> >In the medieval context, we also have virtually no
> data points on which to base this match up. The
> Swiss were the only pike users in any widespread
> sense of the term and looking at their battles at
> the unit level, they were fighting enemy foot. Now,
> we can always trot out the English charges into
> Scottish units at places like Bannockburn (and we
> can also discuss the whole Scottish "spear" and it's
> characterization in WARRIOR) as a case where massed
> infantry with long pointy weapons easily beat the
> strawberries and cream out of the flour of English
> knighthood. However, there's a very important
> distinction there, said Scottish formations were
> *always* behind broken terrain, ditches, mud, crap,
> etc. Therefore, the English were always hitting
> disordered.
>
> >It's clear that in general, cav avoided pike like
> the plague. It's also clear that players are still
> loath to toss cav into a pike block because of the
> cost-benefit issues, the fact that if the cav
> doesn't do the job, it's gone whereas the pike
> merely goes "huh? did something happen?" and can
> live a few more hours to do other things. Yes, in
> the "we've got 15 minutes left to play so everybody
> charges everybody" tourney mindset, you'll see all
> kinds of crazyness:) I mean when playing
> against Ed last week, I tossed HK into a Qin "pike"
> block that was actually just one rank of pike and
> one rank of bow where I hit. All I would have done,
> at best, was to break through, which is what I was
> hoping to do. His die roll swing outdid mine so
> Cortez was sent hurtling back to his camp. And when
> running L Hungarians against the same army, my goal
> was to kill everything around the pikes, not slam my
> precious SHK units into them frontally.
>
> >I find this thread interesting considering that all
> I ever hear at cons is how EHC sucks, has no place
> in the game anymore, yadda yadda yadda.
>
> scott
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

grrr...!

JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 6/28/2003 08:30:37 Central Daylight
Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:

> Kelly,
>
> I believe you remember the game differently;
>
> Todd
>

There's a shock...


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Mark Mallard]

An interesting debate -

The possible rolls for regular are as follows

0 = 10/36
+1=8/36
+2=4/36
+3=1/36
-1=8/36
-2=4/36
-3=1/36

for irregular it is a more flattened bell curve

0=6/36
+1=6/36
+2=5/36
+3=3/36
+4=1/36
-1=6/36
-2=5/36
-3=3/36
-4=1/36

so the +2 mentioned in the original posting 0 & +2 is

regular 10/36 * 4/36 = 3.08641%
if we add in the other +2 combinations
-3 & -1 = 1/36 * 8/36 = 0.61728%
-2 & 0 = 4/36 * 10/36 = 3.08641%
-1 & +1 = 8/36 * 8/36 = 4.93827%
+1 & +3 = 8/38 * 1/36 = 0.61728%

the total chance of an exact +2 differential with regulars c v regulars c is
12.34565%

+3 difference is also a possibility

0 & +3 = 0.7716%
-1& +2 = 2.46913%
-2& +1 = 2.46913%
-3 & 0 = 0.7716%

the total chance of an exact differential of +3 with regulars c v regulars c
is 6.48146%

+4 difference is also a possibility

-1 & +3 = 0.61728%
-2 & +2 = 1.123456%
-3 & +1 = 0.61728%

the total chance of an exact differential of +4 with regular c v regular c is
2.358016%

+5 difference is also a possibility

-2 & +3 = 0.30864%
-3 & +2 = 0.30864%

the total chance of an exact differential of +5 with regular c v regular c is
0.61728%

+6 difference is the final possibility

-3 & +3 = 0.07716%


So the total chance of rolling a differential of +2 or more and recoiling the
pikes is 21.879566% with regular c cav versus reg c pikes

Of course the other78%+ means the cavalry have been stuffed

With irregular cavalry
chance of exact +2 differential is as follows

0 & +2 = 10/36 * 5/36 = 3.85802%
+1 & +3 = 8/36 * 3/36 = 1.85185%
+2 & +4 = 4/36 * 1/36 = 0.30864%
-1 & +1 = 8/36 * 6/36 = 3.7037%
-2 & 0 = 4/36 * 6/36 = 1.85185%
-3 & -1 = 1/36 * 6/36 = 0.46296%

total for exactly +2 differential= 12.03702%

chance for exact +3 differential is as follows

0 & +3 = 2.3148%
+1 & +4 = 0.61728%
-1 & +2 = 3.08641%
-2 & +1 = 1.85185%
-3 & 0 = 0.46296%

total for exactly +3 differential = 8.3333%

chance for exact +4 differential is as follows

0 & +4 = 0.7716%
-1 & +3 = 1.85185%
-2 & +2 = 1.5432%
-3 & +1 = 0.46296%

total for exactly +4 differential = 4.62961%

chance for exact +5 differential is as follows

-1 & +4 = 0.61728%
-2 & +3 = 0.92592%
-3 & +2 = 0.3858%

total for exactly +5 differential= 1.929%

chance for +6 differential is as follows

-2 &+4 = 0.30864%
-3 &+3 = 0.23148%

total for exactly +6 differential=0.54012%

chance of +7 differential -3 & +4 = 0.07716%

chance of getting +2 differential or better with irr c cav verses reg c pike
= 27.54621%

hopefully there are no major errors in my calculations

a sobering thought is that this is the chance to recoil the pikes, if the
pikes are not recoiled the cavalry is either breaking off tired & disordered and
very vulnerable to a charge most likely or already routing

i see no problem with the statistical possibilities.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/30/2003 07:17:47 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:

> chance of getting +2 differential or better with irr c cav verses reg c
> pike
> = 27.54621%
>
> hopefully there are no major errors in my calculations
>
> a sobering thought is that this is the chance to recoil the pikes, if the
> pikes are not recoiled the cavalry is either breaking off tired &disordered
> and
> very vulnerable to a charge most likely or already routing
>
> i see no problem with the statistical possibilities.
>

Indeed - precisely the same number and conclusion I came up with. Who says
we don't agree on things? lol

J


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