Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.

Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the skirmish
formation.

I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the emeny
will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire. Where I get
a bit lost is :-

How does running hither and thither make one less of a target? Surely just
being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....

I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can skirmish
properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy. If one is
going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed formation, may I
suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish formation.

By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically hard task
of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows that
units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation should not
have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able to do a
counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation. Troops who
fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a dice throw
to pass to do a counter move.

Kingo

In effect better troops already get better value out of skirmishing -
in particular higher grade and regular troops are more likely to be
allowed to counter to move back within skirmish - an ideal and often
life saving move for small units of Regular Light Cavalry with Bow
(I am a Byzantine player a lot of the time)

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" <tors1@o...> wrote:
> Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.
>
> Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the
skirmish
> formation.
>
> I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the
emeny
> will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire.
Where I get
> a bit lost is :-
>
> How does running hither and thither make one less of a target?
Surely just
> being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....
>
> I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can
skirmish
> properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy.
If one is
> going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed
formation, may I
> suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish
formation.
>
> By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight
in
> dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically
hard task
> of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then
follows that
> units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation
should not
> have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be
able to do a
> counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation.
Troops who
> fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a
dice throw
> to pass to do a counter move.
>
> Kingo

[Greg Regets]

To me, what skirmish is simulating is not so much making the target
harder to hit, as much as spreading out the hits over the whole unit,
rather than the front few ranks taking all the pounding. When you
look at it that way (which is not to say that it the right way),
skirmish makes sense.

My question is, does anyone have any actual historical evidence for
infantry units being in a skirmish situation, and imediately going to
a charge situation? We know several cavalry armied did this on a
regualr basis, but infantry units ... especially large infantry units?

Any chance this could get a look in the new rules?

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" <tors1@o...> wrote:
> Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.
>
> Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the
skirmish
> formation.
>
> I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the
emeny
> will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire.
Where I get
> a bit lost is :-
>
> How does running hither and thither make one less of a target?
Surely just
> being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....
>
> I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can
skirmish
> properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy.
If one is
> going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed
formation, may I
> suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish
formation.
>
> By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
> dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically
hard task
> of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows
that
> units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation
should not
> have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able
to do a
> counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation.
Troops who
> fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a
dice throw
> to pass to do a counter move.
>
> Kingo

[joncleaves]

>
>My question is, does anyone have any actual historical evidence for
>infantry units being in a skirmish situation, and imediately going to
>a charge situation? We know several cavalry armied did this on a
>regualr basis, but infantry units ... especially large infantry units?
>
>Any chance this could get a look in the new rules?>.

Sure, we'll look at it.

J

[Steve Hollowell]

This reminds me of something I think about when I am playing a lot. How many
armies actually had massed bow troops that did skirmish? It's rather hard for me
to picture English Longbowmen skirmishing, but maybe that's because I just
haven't read enough.

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:To me, what skirmish is simulating
is not so much making the target
harder to hit, as much as spreading out the hits over the whole unit,
rather than the front few ranks taking all the pounding. When you
look at it that way (which is not to say that it the right way),
skirmish makes sense.

My question is, does anyone have any actual historical evidence for
infantry units being in a skirmish situation, and imediately going to
a charge situation? We know several cavalry armied did this on a
regualr basis, but infantry units ... especially large infantry units?

Any chance this could get a look in the new rules?

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" wrote:
> Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.
>
> Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the
skirmish
> formation.
>
> I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the
emeny
> will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire.
Where I get
> a bit lost is :-
>
> How does running hither and thither make one less of a target?
Surely just
> being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....
>
> I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can
skirmish
> properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy.
If one is
> going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed
formation, may I
> suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish
formation.
>
> By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
> dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically
hard task
> of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows
that
> units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation
should not
> have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able
to do a
> counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation.
Troops who
> fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a
dice throw
> to pass to do a counter move.
>
> Kingo





Yahoo! Groups Links







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

May I suggest that when non crossbows bow armed and sling and staff sling
infantry are used against a target, the fire goes up at an angle and would
come down in a spread from front to rear of a target, ie it drops out of the
sky. I do'nt see that the front rank of a unit would take the brunt of the
fire. Skirmish formation would not give any more protection to the front
rank.

Kingo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Skirmishing my 2 bobs worth


> To me, what skirmish is simulating is not so much making the target
> harder to hit, as much as spreading out the hits over the whole unit,
> rather than the front few ranks taking all the pounding. When you
> look at it that way (which is not to say that it the right way),
> skirmish makes sense.
>
> My question is, does anyone have any actual historical evidence for
> infantry units being in a skirmish situation, and imediately going to
> a charge situation? We know several cavalry armied did this on a
> regualr basis, but infantry units ... especially large infantry units?
>
> Any chance this could get a look in the new rules?
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" <tors1@o...> wrote:
> > Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.
> >
> > Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the
> skirmish
> > formation.
> >
> > I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the
> emeny
> > will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire.
> Where I get
> > a bit lost is :-
> >
> > How does running hither and thither make one less of a target?
> Surely just
> > being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....
> >
> > I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can
> skirmish
> > properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy.
> If one is
> > going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed
> formation, may I
> > suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish
> formation.
> >
> > By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
> > dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically
> hard task
> > of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows
> that
> > units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation
> should not
> > have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able
> to do a
> > counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation.
> Troops who
> > fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a
> dice throw
> > to pass to do a counter move.
> >
> > Kingo
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I like this idea with one change that all light cavalry be considered one morale
grade higher as this is their bread and butter. If you disagree, then
Parthians,Skythians, Huns, etc. . . who fought this way historically would have
a even more difficult time in Warrior.

kelly

Alex King <tors1@...> wrote:
Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.

Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the skirmish
formation.

I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the emeny
will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire. Where I get
a bit lost is :-

How does running hither and thither make one less of a target? Surely just
being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....

I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can skirmish
properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy. If one is
going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed formation, may I
suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish formation.

By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically hard task
of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows that
units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation should not
have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able to do a
counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation. Troops who
fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a dice throw
to pass to do a counter move.

Kingo


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

[John Murphy]

Kingo brings up something here I would also like to elaborate on...

Archery at all but point-blank range (archery and point-blank both
deriving their precise meaning from this I believe) involved falling
fire rather than frontal fire. The armor or shields of the front
rank gave no protection to those behind.

So, for instance Harold Godwinson standing behind his invincible
shieldwall gets taken out by an arrow to the eye, to cite one most
famous (if controversial) example.

This is mentioned in the Warrior rules under the effect of overhead
shooting at range (not being halved twice).

But I have seen other rules recently that allow bows and longbows
firing at long range to operate against the worst armor and shield
category of the target rather than the front. This contrasts in the
medieval period to crossbow fire and short range bow and longbow
fire which continue to operate against the front of the target.

Any possibility to consider something like this?

Possibly should also be considered for all long range shooting from
battlements or elevated terrain.

Given the rush to cut the shields and armor of back ranks in Warrior
it would make for an interesting counter-balance.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent point, Greg. I would like to go further with this and ask if any
historical data could be found where English Longbowmen ever skirmished or is
this just a rules issue carried over from WRG that will never be looked into as
it changes the way an army is played?

kelly

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
To me, what skirmish is simulating is not so much making the target
harder to hit, as much as spreading out the hits over the whole unit,
rather than the front few ranks taking all the pounding. When you
look at it that way (which is not to say that it the right way),
skirmish makes sense.

My question is, does anyone have any actual historical evidence for
infantry units being in a skirmish situation, and imediately going to
a charge situation? We know several cavalry armied did this on a
regualr basis, but infantry units ... especially large infantry units?

Any chance this could get a look in the new rules?

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" <tors1@o...> wrote:
> Just my 2 bobs worth!!!.
>
> Can I just make a few comments about the rational behind the
skirmish
> formation.
>
> I can see that being in a disperesd formation to skirmish with the
emeny
> will make the unit harder to be hit by any emeny returning fire.
Where I get
> a bit lost is :-
>
> How does running hither and thither make one less of a target?
Surely just
> being in the dispursed formation is enough. But if not read on.....
>
> I would have thought a unit of troops who can skirmish, can
skirmish
> properly and keep their optimum distance from an advancing enemy.
If one is
> going to have a skirmish formation as well as a dispersed
formation, may I
> suggest that the test should be to get the troops into skirmish
formation.
>
> By this poorer trained D and E class troops will be able to fight in
> dispersed formation but not find it so easy to do the technically
hard task
> of milling around in an ordered skirmish formation. It then follows
that
> units that are compitant enough to go into skirmish formation
should not
> have to pass any more tests to do counter moves, but should be able
to do a
> counter move free and gratis while in the skirmish formation.
Troops who
> fail the dice to go into Skirmish order should still have to do a
dice throw
> to pass to do a counter move.
>
> Kingo


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I certainly agree with this. In fact, this would go a very long way in curbing
Moogs(the feared infantry killers of warrior) since their back ranks are
shieldless.

kelly

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
Kingo brings up something here I would also like to elaborate on...

Archery at all but point-blank range (archery and point-blank both
deriving their precise meaning from this I believe) involved falling
fire rather than frontal fire. The armor or shields of the front
rank gave no protection to those behind.

So, for instance Harold Godwinson standing behind his invincible
shieldwall gets taken out by an arrow to the eye, to cite one most
famous (if controversial) example.

This is mentioned in the Warrior rules under the effect of overhead
shooting at range (not being halved twice).

But I have seen other rules recently that allow bows and longbows
firing at long range to operate against the worst armor and shield
category of the target rather than the front. This contrasts in the
medieval period to crossbow fire and short range bow and longbow
fire which continue to operate against the front of the target.

Any possibility to consider something like this?

Possibly should also be considered for all long range shooting from
battlements or elevated terrain.

Given the rush to cut the shields and armor of back ranks in Warrior
it would make for an interesting counter-balance.



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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