Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Gents

We have been reviewing all the traffic on the swiss - both that which is recent
and that which drove us to the last clarification. It is possible we got it
hosed up, but we're not sure yet. Going through the messages and hitting the
books and confering with folks and amongst ourselves takes time. We also want
to make sure we look at the whole issue and get it right from a comprehensive
standpoint so we don't put the player through this again.
Please be patient with us. Once we figure out what needs fixing - if anything,
Scott will get on here and lay it out.

Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

One issue is that European pike as a whole does not seem to model historical
results.

The European armies I generally play, or play against locally, are Medieval
French, French Ordinance, Swiss, Early Burundian, and Burundian Ordinance.
These all are neighbors that fought against each other at some point. One takes
pike in these lists only if required unless Swiss. This shows there is a
problem here as the pike became the main battle line historicaly.


European metallurgy was undergoing a renaissance of its own during this period.
Not only was iron becoming much cheaper, it was getting much better with the
advent of cheep tempered steel. We need to keep in mind that Warrior defines HI
to be as little as a light chain shirt and metal head cap. This is a far cry
from the fully protected steel helmets and tempered steel cuirasses that Warrior
classifies as what HI in this period wore.

Europe started the feudal period with HI/MI, LTS, SH as the mainstay of its
line. With the advent of the Swiss use of pike, all the other were faced with
moving to pike to at least try to counter the Swiss pike charge. Pike was the
natural evolution from the LTS. Shields were discarded as the move to pike
coincided with better and cheaper metallurgy. The pikeman received the same
protection due to his armor as the less effective earlier armor with shield
gave. In effect, the shield was no longer required, not that training was
restricted in the use of the shield to save money.

This latter armor does not meet the test for (L)EHI as it is not full
protection. It does give at least the same protection as given to shielded MI/HI
pike of the ancient period.

The solution to this issue can be handled in the same was as has been done for
both SHK and Almughavars, with a list rule. Though shieldless historically,
these were allowed to cost for shields as it better reflected either their
better armor as in the cases of the knights or the actual battlefield
performance of the Almughavars.

To highlight this need for a list rule, missile fire becomes much more prevalent
on the later feudal battlefields than earlier feudal battlefields. The shield
would not have been discarded if doing so would have made troops even more open
to the effects of missile fire.

Ed

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ed,

Well said.

kelly

"eforbes100@..." <eforbes100@...> wrote:
Jon,

One issue is that European pike as a whole does not seem to model historical
results.

The European armies I generally play, or play against locally, are Medieval
French, French Ordinance, Swiss, Early Burundian, and Burundian Ordinance.
These all are neighbors that fought against each other at some point. One takes
pike in these lists only if required unless Swiss. This shows there is a
problem here as the pike became the main battle line historicaly.


European metallurgy was undergoing a renaissance of its own during this period.
Not only was iron becoming much cheaper, it was getting much better with the
advent of cheep tempered steel. We need to keep in mind that Warrior defines HI
to be as little as a light chain shirt and metal head cap. This is a far cry
from the fully protected steel helmets and tempered steel cuirasses that Warrior
classifies as what HI in this period wore.

Europe started the feudal period with HI/MI, LTS, SH as the mainstay of its
line. With the advent of the Swiss use of pike, all the other were faced with
moving to pike to at least try to counter the Swiss pike charge. Pike was the
natural evolution from the LTS. Shields were discarded as the move to pike
coincided with better and cheaper metallurgy. The pikeman received the same
protection due to his armor as the less effective earlier armor with shield
gave. In effect, the shield was no longer required, not that training was
restricted in the use of the shield to save money.

This latter armor does not meet the test for (L)EHI as it is not full
protection. It does give at least the same protection as given to shielded MI/HI
pike of the ancient period.

The solution to this issue can be handled in the same was as has been done for
both SHK and Almughavars, with a list rule. Though shieldless historically,
these were allowed to cost for shields as it better reflected either their
better armor as in the cases of the knights or the actual battlefield
performance of the Almughavars.

To highlight this need for a list rule, missile fire becomes much more prevalent
on the later feudal battlefields than earlier feudal battlefields. The shield
would not have been discarded if doing so would have made troops even more open
to the effects of missile fire.

Ed







SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

Ed,
Very nice post. I think that all that white plate in the front rank
is "LEHI" worthy, myself.

Chris

>
>


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

[Ed Forbes]

-- Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...> wrote:

>Ed,
> Very nice post. I think that all that white plate in the front >rank is
"LEHI" worthy, myself.

Chris



----
So do I.

Up to 1/4 of Late European Pike/2HCT should have the option of LEHI status. I
belive that this would better model the Europen battlefield than is currently
the case.


On the case for Late European LEHI and the Japanese, the steel for armor
available to Europeans of this period was much superior than that available to
the Japanese. One only has to read of the extreme amount of time and effort the
Japanese expended to just get passable iron supports this. The Japanese had
some very good workmanship in a small number of swords, but the quality of the
very little metal used in Japanese armor did not come close to the quality used
in the better German rank and file ordinance armor of the period. It definitely
does not come close to the quality of the best armor the Germans were making.
The rest of Europe's armor could be argued to somewhat less than that of the
German, but not that much less.

Ed



>
>


[

Ed Wrote
> On the case for Late European LEHI and the Japanese, the steel for
> armor available to Europeans of this period was much superior than
> that available to the Japanese. One only has to read of the
> extreme amount of time and effort the Japanese expended to just
> get passable iron supports this. The Japanese had some very good
> workmanship in a small number of swords, but the quality of the
> very little metal used in Japanese armor did not come close to the
> quality used in the better German rank and file ordinance armor of
> the period. It definitely does not come close to the quality of
> the best armor the Germans were making. The rest of Europe's armor
> could be argued to somewhat less than that of the German, but not
> that much less.

Well said, in both this post and the previous one Ed. A couple of
points to consider:

- The Japanese imported boatloads of Portugese munitions
breastplates and used them extensively as soon as they were
available. This is a strong indicator of the superiority of
European munition grade armour to Japanese armour

- I will however argue with your statement "The rest of Europe's
armor could be argued to somewhat less than that of the German." I
believe you will be hard pressed to find a source that supports that
statement, especially when in comparison with the far more popular
Italian armour from Lombardy, and in particular Milan.

Have fun!
Cole

[Ed Forbes]

Cole,

I agree, the armories in Europe that were considered to be "the best"
continually changed over time.

Many of the armory masters moved from area to area, the same as did other
artists of the peroid. The Germans were the first in Europe to produce and use
exceptional steel, but others soon followed.

Ed

-- "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@...> wrote:



Well said, in both this post and the previous one Ed. A couple of
points to consider:

- The Japanese imported boatloads of Portugese munitions
breastplates and used them extensively as soon as they were
available. This is a strong indicator of the superiority of
European munition grade armour to Japanese armour

- I will however argue with your statement "The rest of Europe's
armor could be argued to somewhat less than that of the German." I
believe you will be hard pressed to find a source that supports that
statement, especially when in comparison with the far more popular
Italian armour from Lombardy, and in particular Milan.

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links