Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Damour]

Greg,
While I have a hard time visualizing the battlefield that you describe
in the first two paragraphs below, I have no doubt that it actually occured.
May I respectfully point out that if you look at the historical response of
the knights to guys with long pointy sticks that may provide the solution
that you are seeking? (i.e. Get off the dang horses and charge the peasant
scum as SHI/EHI!) <<grin>> Oh yeah, this is also the ideal job for
artillery, but you would have had to have bought it in your list...

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:14:05 -0600, "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>
wrote :
> <<<GREG>>> I don't want to pick on any one army or player and please
understand that I was one of the guys that used field fortifications in each
game this weekend, so in part, I'm talking about myself. In one particular
game I was playing a Roman-British with my KofSt.J. He took six elements of
ditched palisade and I took two stone walls. The R-B had a climate +1, so
made all his terrain rolls. Flank march entry was closed by terrain, and if
you have ever tried to do an amphibious assault against a sound player, you
will know that is rarely an option. There was a grand total of about 12" of
open space available and on the R-B side it was lined by LTS guys, stacked
so deep that you couldn't pull a CPF (trust me, I tried). On my side I had
units in skirmish, again so deep that you coundn't get even a CPF shooting,
and obviously the LTS couldn't catch. We ended up fighting a battle with his
three 16-fig units of LMI,JLS,Sh against my six 8-fig units of LHI,JLS,Sh.
There were some breaks, but nobody saw them so there was no waver tests.
Late in the game I changed orders and slammed four units of SHK's into the
spearmen, but obviously I bounced (no Up-3's ~haha~). There was just no way,
mounted or dismounted, that I was going to get a CPF, unless I had something
going in @9, and obviously very few armies get that. The only way to be
aggressive, was to be stupid and give him the game.
>
> <<<GREG>>> My concern is that we have worked so hard to make more armies
playable, and the scoring system wants you to be aggressive, and here we
have two things that greatly reduces both of those things. The problem is,
that we both knew the other could get it, and to not take it was to invite
defeat. Had either one of us not taken it, while the other had, there was a
serious balance of power swing. As a result, any solid player is going to
take his if he can, and if both take it, you have a sits-kreig. Perhaps all
of this is unfounded, but I can say in the game I mentioned, we both pushed
as hard as we could given the space available and did as much charging as
space permitted, and the game ended up 148-0 in points. The only advantage
was LHI and smaller units.

Loose order foot is NOT disordered by crossing an obstacle. (No Jon!
Not the pain booth! I didn't answer a rules question!)
> <<<GREG>>> Perhaps I'm making too much of this. That is highly possible,
~wink~. I just have not liked what I have seen so far, and I have noticed
quite a few guys making plans to build 'fort' armies. Even troops that can
attack these things, usually have to do so impetuously, and that means they
chase, are disordered, usually get smacked by el-cheapo cavalry right after
that and get wiped out. Even the best killer LO foot better think twice
about attacking it, if cavalry is close at hand. Likewise, if there are gaps
in the fortifications, attacking the palisades with archers can be
problematic. Last but not least, do stone walls burn?

--
Christopher Damour

[joncleaves]

Oooh, tactics. Chris, I am impressed. I guess you have been using your free
time wisely...

[Greg Regets]

I agree Chris, and the dismounts look cool too ... :-)

My problem in this instance was that the LTS was so deep, it would have been
mathematically impossible to ever get 3CPF, or even 1CPF after I was disordered.
Hell, I couldn't even get a CPF in prep at short range with four on a stand
skirmishing bowmen, haha.

I opted (probably out of frustration) to go the other way and try for successive
waver for foot recoiling vs. mounted.

I'm not crazy about either tactic. I would rather pin with LI and go kill
something else. Alas, the only options were the woods or the palisades, so the
Genoese Marines got to play and the rest of the army got to ... well, got to
charge steady LTS. :-)

Thanks ... G
----- Original Message -----
From: damourc
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Tactical Advice...


Greg,
While I have a hard time visualizing the battlefield that you describe
in the first two paragraphs below, I have no doubt that it actually occured.
May I respectfully point out that if you look at the historical response of
the knights to guys with long pointy sticks that may provide the solution
that you are seeking? (i.e. Get off the dang horses and charge the peasant
scum as SHI/EHI!) <<grin>> Oh yeah, this is also the ideal job for
artillery, but you would have had to have bought it in your list...

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:14:05 -0600, "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>
wrote :
> <<<GREG>>> I don't want to pick on any one army or player and please
understand that I was one of the guys that used field fortifications in each
game this weekend, so in part, I'm talking about myself. In one particular
game I was playing a Roman-British with my KofSt.J. He took six elements of
ditched palisade and I took two stone walls. The R-B had a climate +1, so
made all his terrain rolls. Flank march entry was closed by terrain, and if
you have ever tried to do an amphibious assault against a sound player, you
will know that is rarely an option. There was a grand total of about 12" of
open space available and on the R-B side it was lined by LTS guys, stacked
so deep that you couldn't pull a CPF (trust me, I tried). On my side I had
units in skirmish, again so deep that you coundn't get even a CPF shooting,
and obviously the LTS couldn't catch. We ended up fighting a battle with his
three 16-fig units of LMI,JLS,Sh against my six 8-fig units of LHI,JLS,Sh.
There were some breaks, but nobody saw them so there was no waver tests.
Late in the game I changed orders and slammed four units of SHK's into the
spearmen, but obviously I bounced (no Up-3's ~haha~). There was just no way,
mounted or dismounted, that I was going to get a CPF, unless I had something
going in @9, and obviously very few armies get that. The only way to be
aggressive, was to be stupid and give him the game.
>
> <<<GREG>>> My concern is that we have worked so hard to make more armies
playable, and the scoring system wants you to be aggressive, and here we
have two things that greatly reduces both of those things. The problem is,
that we both knew the other could get it, and to not take it was to invite
defeat. Had either one of us not taken it, while the other had, there was a
serious balance of power swing. As a result, any solid player is going to
take his if he can, and if both take it, you have a sits-kreig. Perhaps all
of this is unfounded, but I can say in the game I mentioned, we both pushed
as hard as we could given the space available and did as much charging as
space permitted, and the game ended up 148-0 in points. The only advantage
was LHI and smaller units.

Loose order foot is NOT disordered by crossing an obstacle. (No Jon!
Not the pain booth! I didn't answer a rules question!)
> <<<GREG>>> Perhaps I'm making too much of this. That is highly possible,
~wink~. I just have not liked what I have seen so far, and I have noticed
quite a few guys making plans to build 'fort' armies. Even troops that can
attack these things, usually have to do so impetuously, and that means they
chase, are disordered, usually get smacked by el-cheapo cavalry right after
that and get wiped out. Even the best killer LO foot better think twice
about attacking it, if cavalry is close at hand. Likewise, if there are gaps
in the fortifications, attacking the palisades with archers can be
problematic. Last but not least, do stone walls burn?

--
Christopher Damour


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.



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