Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Larry Essick]

> << does not mean that bows should be dominant. >>
>
> Don't believe they are, but have already been over this a few times..lol

Then explain the necessity to provide shields to historically shieldless troops
(as in Almugavars) to make up for the inability of the rules to simulate their
historical performance.

Shooting is too effective. It is a combination of the casualties caused and the
impact of those casualties on the troops involved.

An Almugavar with HTW,JLS as shieldless LMI cannot survive to contact against an
Irr C LMI B unit without becoming disordered, tired and, quite possibly, shaken.
So, the solution is to give 50% shields.

That is the wrong approach.

The right approach is to evaluate, historically, how the Almugavars survived
shooting. The answers....

1. They did not have JLS but D. Historical texts identify this as the case.
With the D they outshot their opponent (Genoese Cb for one, which are invariably
Reg LHI).

2. They used shooters of their own.

3. They hid in towns, woods, marshes and did not fight in the open against
shooters. Historical texts identify this as well.

Warrior lists try too hard to make up for player habits (bad habits) and so
introduce poor history to a game that, at its core, is all about history.

Shooting effects contribute to that. The +3 against shieldless LMI, the forced
waiver tests, etc.

Bob Andriola rightly points out that there is a cyclic pattern and rightly
compares it to RPS. If all you are going to use is rock then paper will always
win. By the end of our period most successful armies are emphasising a balanced
approach with a bit of rock, a bit of paper and a bit of scissors. HYW English
armies are an example of this. HYW French as well. It then comes down to
tactical employment -- something the English did a better job of during the HYW
(in general).

Larry

[joncleaves]

1. They did not have JLS but D. Historical texts identify this as the case.
With the D they outshot their opponent (Genoese Cb for one, which are invariably
Reg LHI).>>
[
[

We disagree. But you know that. We have made our decision and done our
research and are very happy with the mechanical and historical result of our
decisions. We are aware that you cannot satisy everyone.

<<2. They used shooters of their own.

3. They hid in towns, woods, marshes and did not fight in the open against
shooters. Historical texts identify this as well.>>

Nothing in Warrior prevents these, of course.

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

If shooting os to powerful, why aren't "all Shooting"
Armies regularily winning Tournaments?

Frtom what I recall, ecspecially after Derek won last
Year with the Silla Koreans, everyone expected this
years NICT to be a lot of "Shooting" Armies with some
support units, HYWE, Burgundians and the like.

Instead, IIRC right from Ewans AAR post, the majority
seemed to be

--- larryessick@... wrote:


---------------------------------
> << does not mean that bows should be dominant. >>
>
> Don't believe they are, but have already been over
this a few times..lol

Then explain the necessity to provide shields to
historically shieldless troops (as in Almugavars) to
make up for the inability of the rules to simulate
their historical performance.

Shooting is too effective. It is a combination of the
casualties caused and the impact of those casualties
on the troops involved.

An Almugavar with HTW,JLS as shieldless LMI cannot
survive to contact against an Irr C LMI B unit without
becoming disordered, tired and, quite possibly,
shaken. So, the solution is to give 50% shields.

That is the wrong approach.

The right approach is to evaluate, historically, how
the Almugavars survived shooting. The answers....

1. They did not have JLS but D. Historical texts
identify this as the case. With the D they outshot
their opponent (Genoese Cb for one, which are
invariably Reg LHI).

2. They used shooters of their own.

3. They hid in towns, woods, marshes and did not fight
in the open against shooters. Historical texts
identify this as well.

Warrior lists try too hard to make up for player
habits (bad habits) and so introduce poor history to a
game that, at its core, is all about history.

Shooting effects contribute to that. The +3 against
shieldless LMI, the forced waiver tests, etc.

Bob Andriola rightly points out that there is a cyclic
pattern and rightly compares it to RPS. If all you
are going to use is rock then paper will always win.
By the end of our period most successful armies are
emphasising a balanced approach with a bit of rock, a
bit of paper and a bit of scissors. HYW English
armies are an example of this. HYW French as well.
It then comes down to tactical employment -- something
the English did a better job of during the HYW (in
general).

Larry


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]

Hit the wrong button...

Anyways,

Instead, IIRC right from Ewans AAR post, the majority
seemed to be Foot/Knight based with shooters in
Support.

Todd



--- larryessick@... wrote:


---------------------------------
> << does not mean that bows should be dominant. >>
>
> Don't believe they are, but have already been over
this a few times..lol

Then explain the necessity to provide shields to
historically shieldless troops (as in Almugavars) to
make up for the inability of the rules to simulate
their historical performance.

Shooting is too effective. It is a combination of the
casualties caused and the impact of those casualties
on the troops involved.

An Almugavar with HTW,JLS as shieldless LMI cannot
survive to contact against an Irr C LMI B unit without
becoming disordered, tired and, quite possibly,
shaken. So, the solution is to give 50% shields.

That is the wrong approach.

The right approach is to evaluate, historically, how
the Almugavars survived shooting. The answers....

1. They did not have JLS but D. Historical texts
identify this as the case. With the D they outshot
their opponent (Genoese Cb for one, which are
invariably Reg LHI).

2. They used shooters of their own.

3. They hid in towns, woods, marshes and did not fight
in the open against shooters. Historical texts
identify this as well.

Warrior lists try too hard to make up for player
habits (bad habits) and so introduce poor history to a
game that, at its core, is all about history.

Shooting effects contribute to that. The +3 against
shieldless LMI, the forced waiver tests, etc.

Bob Andriola rightly points out that there is a cyclic
pattern and rightly compares it to RPS. If all you
are going to use is rock then paper will always win.
By the end of our period most successful armies are
emphasising a balanced approach with a bit of rock, a
bit of paper and a bit of scissors. HYW English
armies are an example of this. HYW French as well.
It then comes down to tactical employment -- something
the English did a better job of during the HYW (in
general).

Larry


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.

Probably because tournament army choice is cyclical as well. You say
yourself that everyone thought the NICT would be a shooting army fest.
Since everyone thought that, they instead brought armies geared against
shooty armies (not universally true, of course). Plus, "all shooting"
armies are too one-dimensional. Combined arms armies with overpowered
shooting arms, on the other hand...

Bob

Todd Schneider wrote:

> If shooting os to powerful, why aren't "all Shooting"
> Armies regularily winning Tournaments?
>
--

- Enaa mqatreg naa l-Ruumaayey.

[Larry Essick]

> We disagree.

And it is your game, so you can do as you like in the final analysis.

I also asked you for the historical basis for your classification, something
that you have not provided.

My only conclusion is that there is none -- it is an arbitrary decision.

This is the description of almugavar weapons from the Chronicle of Ramon
Muntaner, who commanded them in the Catalan Company: "The play of the lances and
darts thrown by the Catalans was such that nothing was a defence against them;
for there were darts thrown which passed through men's brestplates and through
everything, and the thrust of lances which passed through the man they hit and
through the deck of the galley." This quote is from Bernat Desclot, another
chronicler of the almugavars who wrote before Muntaner: "His weapons consisted
of a short spear or lance, easy to throw, and of three or four darts which he
carried slung on his shoulder, as reserve ammunition."

I provided you with the historical evidence and asked for your evidence, but
your only reply is that you have seen it differently. Again, as owners of the
rules you can do what you want. Does not make it right and it certainly does
not make it historically accurate.

Larry

[joncleaves]

This is the description of almugavar weapons from the Chronicle of Ramon
Muntaner,>>
[
Yep, read him. The guy had a camp follower carrying a shield for him...lol

<< who commanded them in the Catalan Company: "The play of the lances and darts
thrown by the Catalans was such that nothing was a defence against them; for
there were darts thrown which passed through men's brestplates and through
everything, and the thrust of lances which passed through the man they hit and
through the deck of the galley.">>

Ok, here's a great example. What Warrior weapons would you choose to replicate
the EFFECTS of those weapons? Is what we simulate in Warrior with D the right
thing? HTW? Should these guys be LTS, D? Well, for the larger weapon, which
is arguable, we let the player choose which effect suits him. But for the
smaller of the two, we don't have any evidence at all of a long-range 'dart'
throw in the late roman sense. The short pointed thing that they threw we
replicate with JLS, because of its effect and range.

But - again - we have been through this all before and are hardly going to
change a list based on works we have already read and interpreted. We have a
lot to do with respect to Warrior and only our so-called 'free time' in which to
do it. Its our policy not to get into a give and take on a troop type we are
happy with, particularly when based on souces we have already consulted.

If you'd like to influence a list that is NOT in such a state, one can always
ask offline to be a list reviewer.

Jon

[Larry Essick]

> This is the description of almugavar weapons from the Chronicle of Ramon
Muntaner,>>
> [
> Yep, read him. The guy had a camp follower carrying a shield for him...lol

Muntaner is not an almugavar, he is a knight. He did not fight with almugavar
weapons, he fought from horseback as a knight. I suspect that most knights, and
certainly commanders, had camp followers to carry crap for them.

> << who commanded them in the Catalan Company: "The play of the lances and
darts thrown by the Catalans was such that nothing was a defence against them;
for there were darts thrown which passed through men's brestplates and through
everything, and the thrust of lances which passed through the man they hit and
through the deck of the galley.">>
>
> Ok, here's a great example. What Warrior weapons would you choose to
replicate the EFFECTS of those weapons? Is what we simulate in Warrior with D
the right thing? HTW? Should these guys be LTS, D? Well, for the larger
weapon, which is arguable, we let the player choose which effect suits him. But
for the smaller of the two, we don't have any evidence at all of a long-range
'dart' throw in the late roman sense. The short pointed thing that they threw
we replicate with JLS, because of its effect and range.
>

They outranged the effective shooting of Byzantine, Genoese and Turkish archers.
Tough to do with JLS.

> If you'd like to influence a list that is NOT in such a state, one can always
ask offline to be a list reviewer.
>

I'm not particularly trying to influence a published list. I'm trying to point
out that within the scope of Warrior that there are published lists that do not
represent troops with historical accuracy.

I understand that FHE did this for a variety of reasons. I think some of those
reasons are poor ones and some of the solutions less than optimal. I suppose we
will disagree on that for a while. :-)

But, my concern is for people who do not know any better. Let me use myself as
an example. I know next to nothing about oriental history. I rely on the
accuracy of the rules and lists for what I know.

IMO, FHE has an obligation (one that all wargaming companies share in) to
provide information that is as historically accurate as possible. I pick the
almugavar as an example because I know something about them having done a ton of
research. When FHE allows almugavar shields based on scarce (read non-existant
-- I have not found a single piece of contemporary evidence for shield use and I
asked you for your evidence, which you promised but never provided) evidence it
needs to just tell people that this is done for play balance but that almugavars
should be depicted w/o shields.

It is an honesty factor that wargaming companies should observe because not all
wargamers have degrees in history or the inclination and/or ability to verify
what is provided to them.

Larry

[joncleaves]

> This is the description of almugavar weapons from the Chronicle of Ramon
Muntaner,>>
> [
> Yep, read him. The guy had a camp follower carrying a shield for him...lol>.

Muntaner is not an almugavar, he is a knight.>>

That would be humor, Larry.


<<They outranged the effective shooting of Byzantine, Genoese and Turkish
archers. Tough to do with JLS.>>

As a good example, I do not agree that they did. I think the description this
is based on is misleading. I don't personally put complete stock in single
sources, even contemporary accounts - or supposed ones. A number of sources and
data points have to be taken into account.

If all of a sudden someone discovered a scroll outside Rome where a contemporary
tribune declared categorically that the legion never carried a pilum - would I
believe it just because it seems as though someone who might have been there
says so? Do I believe Caesar's Gallic Wars at face value? No.

<<I'm not particularly trying to influence a published list. I'm trying to
point out that within the scope of Warrior that there are published lists that
do not represent troops with historical accuracy.>>

We are aware you think so. We do not agree.

<<I understand that FHE did this for a variety of reasons. I think some of
those reasons are poor ones and some of the solutions less than optimal. I
suppose we will disagree on that for a while. >>

I think probably so, especially since I am quite sure your understanding of what
we did and why is flawed. I know what some people on the issue on and offline
and I know you have taken some of those views. But the only authority on what
we did and why is us.

<<IMO, FHE has an obligation (one that all wargaming companies share in) to
provide information that is as historically accurate as possible. >>

Yep.

<< I pick the almugavar as an example because I know something about them having
done a ton of research.>>

And you quoted in your article some of the exact same sources we consulted in
ours - but not all. You are clearly in the no shields/no way camp. Got it. We
disagree. But your continued claim that you have the only answer makes it
difficult to believe that a long online back and forth on this issue is worth
it. For example, the professional historical community is itself not in
agreement even on the naming conventions for these troops and in which armies
they fought and which styles they used. There are troops, with different names,
which fought in and around these armies that are constantly confused and mixed
in with them. Some, as one example, had shields and the same weapon mix. Which
were the 'true almughavars' and which were something else? Why worry about that
when the player can draw his own conclusions?

<< needs to just tell people that this is done for play balance but that
almugavars should be depicted w/o shields.>>

Not going to do that because it is not why.

I think everyone would be better served by an agreement to disagree.

Jon

[Larry Essick]

> I think everyone would be better served by an agreement to disagree.
>

I'd rather be able to agree and, honestly, would rather agree with your
perspective.

You refer to other sources, but you won't provide them. Without intending to be
mean, it does appear that you really don't have them. It would be simple enough
to provide, as I have done, the source material. In most circles that is
required unless a person's POV is to be taken as unsubstantiated opinion.

I fully agree that we cannot take things at face value. That is why I refer to
Mott, a leading modern authority, who has access to much more information than I
do. I also know that there is often confusion of troop types and that different
sources use different names for the same thing. It is a function of may things,
including language. It is more complicated because some writers use
anachronistic terms (like phalanx, pike or lance) to describe decidedly
different subjects than what the term actually refers to.

I'm willing to conceed that this might be the case with the almugavar "dart."
What I don't know is why modern writers, like Mott, who have the training to
avoid these pitfalls refer to the almugavar weapon as a dart rather than a
javelin or spear. And I haven't seen Byzantine sources, which would be most
useful since Byzantium is the direct heir of the Roman Empire. Byzantine
sources referring to the "dart" with a term for dart would be very important,
since they are not unfamiliar with the Roman dart (which they used for some time
after the fall of Rome).

I'm wanting to agree with you, but you don't ever provide evidence -- just
claims that you have evidence.

Right now you look more like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar who is
claiming that he isn't into the cookies at all. Without historical evidence
your position is just a POV that you are able to enforce because of ownership of
the rules. It might be the right POV, but it is presently without evidence
other than your authority.

IMO, we all deserve better than that.

Larry

[joncleaves]

Right now you look more like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar who is
claiming that he isn't into the cookies at all. Without historical evidence
your position is just a POV that you are able to enforce because of ownership of
the rules. It might be the right POV, but it is presently without evidence
other than your authority.>>

I am trying, as diplomatically as I can, to explain why we have a policy about
getting into these discussions online. Doing so would open the pandora's box on
every stirrup-like, trapezetoi issue we have beat to death on this list. We
aren't into it - it is a collosal waste of time.

More pratically, my moog notes are shorthand, and you would not be satisfied
with them without exact footnotes and I returned the source material over year
ago. I could stop and reconstruct all that - at least I would know where to
start looking. For what? To disagree with you on how a medieval unit was named
and who thinks which source is 'authoritative' and which is a hack? Not on my
list of things that are worth it.

Believe me, Larry. If I had the chapter and verse at hand I would just email it
to you offline. If I get a free moment I maye rehit the books and do it anyway.
But I'd rather hit the books on OW.
But I believe it will cause MUCH more trouble than it is worth - and not just
from you...lol

Jon

[Larry Essick]

> I am trying, as diplomatically as I can, to explain why we have a policy about
getting into these discussions online. Doing so would open the pandora's box on
every stirrup-like, trapezetoi issue we have beat to death on this list. We
aren't into it - it is a collosal waste of time.
>
> More pratically, my moog notes are shorthand, and you would not be satisfied
with them without exact footnotes and I returned the source material over year
ago. I could stop and reconstruct all that - at least I would know where to
start looking. For what? To disagree with you on how a medieval unit was named
and who thinks which source is 'authoritative' and which is a hack? Not on my
list of things that are worth it.
>
> Believe me, Larry. If I had the chapter and verse at hand I would just email
it to you offline. If I get a free moment I maye rehit the books and do it
anyway. But I'd rather hit the books on OW.
>

Fair enough Jon.

When you have time I would appreciate it. Or anyone else who has information.

Larry

[Doug]

>Ok, here's a great example. What Warrior weapons would you choose
>to replicate the EFFECTS of those weapons? Is what we simulate in
>Warrior with D the right thing? HTW? Should these guys be LTS, D?
>Well, for the larger weapon, which is arguable, we let the player
>choose which effect suits him. But for the smaller of the two, we
>don't have any evidence at all of a long-range 'dart' throw in the
>late roman sense. The short pointed thing that they threw we
>replicate with JLS, because of its effect and range.

Which reminds me; I meant to ask a while ago-- are there any extant
examples of those weapons, or are there any post-Medieval
measurements of them? Do we know more about what their physical
description than the contemporary passages mentioning how they were
used?