Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 16:27:34 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
I do however feel that the lack of proper terrain troops will be a
major difficulty for this army. Being so irregular, attacking past
terrain will be a major issue in my mind ... not one that cannot be
worked around, but still a major issue.>>
the army has terrain troops, just not Irr B shock stuff. it has plenty to
contest terrain, which is all that is really needed. you're not going to get a
5-1 or 5-0 slogging around in terrain against a veteran player.



Yes, you can roll a cheesy road, and open spaces, but that sort of
thing mostly works against players that think they can only place
terrain that is the maximum possible size.>>

Lord knows my opinion of the use of the word cheese in gaming, but that's
another subject...lol

At a minimum, an area feature has to be able to contain a 240p circle. Easy
to 'defeat' with placement of opens or roads. This is by design, as by far
the balance of ancient and medieval combat took place on open battlefields.
Terrain can protect a flank, but using it as the place to do the business of
real
killing is highly problematic - again, by design.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 17:28:24 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
But, this is not actually accurate. Germanic and Frankish tribes were
noted for not participating in stand up battle on open ground, but
using woods and other terrain as places of ambush. Slavs were known
for frequenting marshy ground and this made their subjugation by the
Teutonic Orders quite difficult. Picts and Gauls made regular and
frequent use of terrain and Scots and Irish made such frequent use of
plashing that woods should be mandatory on any table featuring them.

What most well known classical and medieval battles had in common was
that they occurred on relatively clear ground with rough or difficult
terrain anchoring the flanks and, often, the rear. Still, many well
known battles featured hills as the central portion of the battlefield
(as at Crecy, Agincourt, and Hastings). Clear but definitely
providing an advantage to the tactical defender.

Other battles featured very unstable footing (Agincourt and Hydaspes)
that completely defies this notion of clear and open.

Darius, OTOH, was so insistant on clear and open that he reportedly
had the battlefield at Guagamela cleared of every stone and bush so
that his chariots would not be hampered. The lack of terrain being a
significant factor in his defeat.
I said majority. Certainly you have nailed most of the exceptions...lol


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

[Ewan McNay]

Jon quoth:
I have just begun collecting the figures for this list, Ewan, so
if you don't mind taking some comments from me, I have given it
some thought.

[EM] Oh, I'll take comments from anyone. Not sure whether to
be happy or sad that it seems I would not be alone in using the list.

Without a list exception, generals can only be combined in units
of the same order, which EHC and SHC are not.

[EM] Too bad. Whole units of SHC are (i) damn expensive and (ii)
much less effective. That's a big negative for me; hmm.

I am taking mine with a great deal of Irr B HC L B Sh and one
maybe two units of EHC. Without K of your own, your cav are
closers - something I am getting better and better at as I play.
EHC are good closers on B/D missile troops, but I have found I
can more often get the enemy disordered or disadvantaged in some
other way that I don't need to send in a lone EHC unit but rarely.

[EM] I am certainly viiewing the HC as second-punch troops; that
was the reason for not bothering to take shields, as I expected
them to spend much time in skirmish unless they were charging
into an already-happening battle (and in neither case would the
shield be needed - so on an expensive list..)

>> * Any plausible role for the MI?>>

The B back rank helps split fire greatly and the JLS + actually
makes the right kind of difference against El and barbarian foot.
You'll still recoil to SHK, but when facing those I treat this
as a sponge and plan for the recoil with something nearby that
can kill the K. El with this unit next to them are a good combo.

[EM] The fire-split seemed to be less of an issue given that
everything in the army has a B. Using this to oppose enemy
elephants makes sense, though - and hits one of John's points.
In which case they certainly need the JLS. Hmm again.

>> * Can I expect to survive competition terrain?>>

The lack of loose order is the biggest weakness in my mind.
Personally I don't plan to win in terrain, as even if you do, it
takes too long and I am a fast player by style. I'll be taking 1
road, and three open and using my LI to mitigate the terrain he
does manage to get.

[EM] Indeed. I have always viewed roads as kinda sleazy, but may
have to adopt them here .

>> * Can I win fast enough to avoid losiing?>>

You have the tools to win the screen battle if he tries to dance
and 7 elephants, while not the 10 of your seleucids, can force
the issue where he has to stand and fight.

[EM] I would certainly like a third El unit. If I delete the SHC
that's the obvious replacement (although then I end up with 2
2-El units, which are significantly more fragile). I have used
(with Ghaznavids) 4- and even on occasion 5-El units with success
(that latter as part of the UK doubles circuit: two allied
armies, 1250 points each, I think. Ghaznavids and Medieval
Indian was the killer combo.)

I hope we can share notes if you take this one on. Two of us in
KC are adding this army to our collections in 25mm in the next
few months.

[EM] well, as ever I will suffer from a complete lack of games at
any time in the year other than Lancaster (and PointCon this
year) - and in this case from a total lack of practice with the
army. But I'll be delighted to borrow one of yours :)

Thanks for the thoughts. Next? ;)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 3:12:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> [EM] I am certainly viiewing the HC as second-punch troops; that
> was the reason for not bothering to take shields, as I expected
> them to spend much time in skirmish unless they were charging
> into an already-happening battle (and in neither case would the
> shield be needed - so on an expensive list..)>>

I have the same thoughts about shields, but have found that EHC is actually on
the rise and always a component of the later Indian crew. I can fight them to a
standstill if necessary if I have a shield, an option made problematic without
one.

>>
> [EM] The fire-split seemed to be less of an issue given that
> everything in the army has a B. >>

I don't like to use El or cav to split fire and the only other viable missile
troops are LI, which I will be using in another capacity. But a good point.

>
> [EM] Indeed. I have always viewed roads as kinda sleazy, but may
> have to adopt them here .>>

I am shocked by this statement, but in the interests of peace, I refrain from
further comment. ;)

>
> [EM] well, as ever I will suffer from a complete lack of games at
> any time in the year other than Lancaster (and PointCon this
> year) - and in this case from a total lack of practice with the
> army. But I'll be delighted to borrow one of yours >>

Ewan, if I had them painted, I'd let you borrow them. I am just starting to
collect the figs. My 2004 project is Medieval Spanish - Sassanids are for next
year, if that early...lol

[Greg Regets]

The Sassanid is clearly a very interesting army. I am looking forward
to the historical matchup with Early Byzantines in 15mm.

I do however feel that the lack of proper terrain troops will be a
major difficulty for this army. Being so irregular, attacking past
terrain will be a major issue in my mind ... not one that cannot be
worked around, but still a major issue.

Yes, you can roll a cheesy road, and open spaces, but that sort of
thing mostly works against players that think they can only place
terrain that is the maximum possible size. From my experience against
armies that are "terrain weak", you are better off with small
irritating terrain choices, placed in irritating positions on the
table. The road/open strategy will do very little to combat this, as
a matter of fact, in my opinion you are better off just rolling four
open spaces.

Take care ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/21/2004 3:12:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > [EM] I am certainly viiewing the HC as second-punch troops; that
> > was the reason for not bothering to take shields, as I expected
> > them to spend much time in skirmish unless they were charging
> > into an already-happening battle (and in neither case would the
> > shield be needed - so on an expensive list..)>>
>
> I have the same thoughts about shields, but have found that EHC is
actually on the rise and always a component of the later Indian
crew. I can fight them to a standstill if necessary if I have a
shield, an option made problematic without one.
>
> >>
> > [EM] The fire-split seemed to be less of an issue given that
> > everything in the army has a B. >>
>
> I don't like to use El or cav to split fire and the only other
viable missile troops are LI, which I will be using in another
capacity. But a good point.
>
> >
> > [EM] Indeed. I have always viewed roads as kinda sleazy, but may
> > have to adopt them here .>>
>
> I am shocked by this statement, but in the interests of peace, I
refrain from further comment.
>
> >
> > [EM] well, as ever I will suffer from a complete lack of games at
> > any time in the year other than Lancaster (and PointCon this
> > year) - and in this case from a total lack of practice with the
> > army. But I'll be delighted to borrow one of yours >>
>
> Ewan, if I had them painted, I'd let you borrow them. I am just
starting to collect the figs. My 2004 project is Medieval Spanish -
Sassanids are for next year, if that early...lol

[Larry Essick]

> At a minimum, an area feature has to be able to contain a 240p
circle. Easy
> to 'defeat' with placement of opens or roads. This is by design, as
by far
> the balance of ancient and medieval combat took place on open
battlefields.
> Terrain can protect a flank, but using it as the place to do the
business of real
> killing is highly problematic - again, by design.

But, this is not actually accurate. Germanic and Frankish tribes were
noted for not participating in stand up battle on open ground, but
using woods and other terrain as places of ambush. Slavs were known
for frequenting marshy ground and this made their subjugation by the
Teutonic Orders quite difficult. Picts and Gauls made regular and
frequent use of terrain and Scots and Irish made such frequent use of
plashing that woods should be mandatory on any table featuring them.

What most well known classical and medieval battles had in common was
that they occurred on relatively clear ground with rough or difficult
terrain anchoring the flanks and, often, the rear. Still, many well
known battles featured hills as the central portion of the battlefield
(as at Crecy, Agincourt, and Hastings). Clear but definitely
providing an advantage to the tactical defender.

Other battles featured very unstable footing (Agincourt and Hydaspes)
that completely defies this notion of clear and open.

Darius, OTOH, was so insistant on clear and open that he reportedly
had the battlefield at Guagamela cleared of every stone and bush so
that his chariots would not be hampered. The lack of terrain being a
significant factor in his defeat.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2004 18:29:47 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
If you assume that all terrain is good for is slogging through, then
you are probably correct Jon.>>

I did not mean that. The simple version of what I meant is that no matter
terrain's use - nothing happens fast in it - a major generalization, I know.
But the issue is that using terrain 'offensively' takes time, time you may not
have to kill 410 pts.


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

[Greg Regets]

If you assume that all terrain is good for is slogging through, then
you are probably correct Jon.

You are also correct about your road/open choices blocking area
features. Of course, this assumes that your opponent will be rolling
area features, which might just be unwise.

I really don't see anything on this list that could "contest"
terrain. I see stuff that can pin in it, which obviously will not
keep a player from using the terrain, or the area behind the terrain
to influence what is happening in the open.

Then again, I don't have my lists in front of me, so I might be
missing some troop type.

Good discussion though ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/21/2004 16:27:34 Central Daylight Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
> I do however feel that the lack of proper terrain troops will be a
> major difficulty for this army. Being so irregular, attacking past
> terrain will be a major issue in my mind ... not one that cannot be
> worked around, but still a major issue.>>
> the army has terrain troops, just not Irr B shock stuff. it has
plenty to
> contest terrain, which is all that is really needed. you're not
going to get a
> 5-1 or 5-0 slogging around in terrain against a veteran player.
>
>
>
> Yes, you can roll a cheesy road, and open spaces, but that sort of
> thing mostly works against players that think they can only place
> terrain that is the maximum possible size.>>
>
> Lord knows my opinion of the use of the word cheese in gaming, but
that's
> another subject...lol
>
> At a minimum, an area feature has to be able to contain a 240p
circle. Easy
> to 'defeat' with placement of opens or roads. This is by design,
as by far
> the balance of ancient and medieval combat took place on open
battlefields.
> Terrain can protect a flank, but using it as the place to do the
business of real
> killing is highly problematic - again, by design.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are a lot of good ways to run Sassanids

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have just begun collecting the figures for this list, Ewan, so
if you don't mind taking some comments from me, I have given it some
thought.
>
> > List draft:
> >
> > CinC on IrrB elephant, 2 additional IrrB El, 4 with B on each
(223)
> > 3 Irr B Elephants, 4 with B (187)
> > Sub as IrrB EHC L, B, Sh, + 1 element IrrB HC L, B, El-proof
(102)
> > Sub ditto (102)
> > Sub as Reg B SHC L, B, Sh + 1 el Reg B EHC L, B, Sh, El-proof
(155)*
> > 4E IrrB HC L, B (121)
> > 4E Hc ditto (121)
> > 2 x 6E Reg D LC B (70, 70)
> > 6E LC ditto but El-proof (82)
> > 2E Reg D LC B, 1/2 JLS, Sh also (3
> > 2 more 2E ditto (38, 3
> > 8E Reg D MI; 4E LTS, Sh/4E B, 2E caltrops (9**
> > 12E IrrD LI B, 1/2 Sh (61)
> > 12E ditto (61)
> > 2 x 4E Reg D LI 1/2 Sh (could be JLS/S/B or combination) (30, 30)
> >
> > I think that's 1597 points. There's a lot more I'd like more
of -
> > this may be a better 2000 point army, in fact - but seems like a
> > plausible start. * I think is legal (the SHC/EHC combo) but
could be
> > wrong. >>
>
> Without a list exception, generals can only be combined in units
of the same order, which EHC and SHC are not.
>
> >
> > As you prepare to savage this, I am pondering in particular:
> > * EHC vs. SHC? Reg vs Irr? what combination(s)?>>
>
> I am taking mine with a great deal of Irr B HC L B Sh and one
maybe two units of EHC. Without K of your own, your cav are
closers - something I am getting better and better at as I play.
EHC are good closers on B/D missile troops, but I have found I can
more often get the enemy disordered or disadvantaged in some other
way that I don't need to send in a lone EHC unit but rarely.
>
> > * Any plausible role for the MI?>>
>
> The B back rank helps split fire greatly and the JLS + actually
makes the right kind of difference against El and barbarian foot.
You'll still recoil to SHK, but when facing those I treat this as a
sponge and plan for the recoil with something nearby that can kill
the K. El with this unit next to them are a good combo.
>
> > * Can I expect to survive competition terrain?>>
>
> The lack of loose order is the biggest weakness in my mind.
Personally I don't plan to win in terrain, as even if you do, it I
think that there are a lot of gootakes too long and I am a fast
player by style. I'll be taking 1

road, and three open and using my LI to mitigate the terrain he does
manage to get.
>
> > * Can I win fast enough to avoid losiing?>>
>
> You have the tools to win the screen battle if he tries to dance
and 7 elephants, while not the 10 of your seleucids, can force the
issue where he has to stand and fight.
>
> I haven't played with this new list yet, so this is all
conjecture - but I have moved the figs around in some exercises and
feel that, while it does not play as fast as something like Feudal
French, it counter-punches very hard. I plan to make bound three
positively HURT. lol
>
> I hope we can share notes if you take this one on. Two of us in
KC are adding this army to our collections in 25mm in the next few
months.
>
> J