Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

 Varies by army
>type; a force of regular SHK is much more counterpunch - hence needs
>reserves - than is ay a Burmese, where the elephants are a first and
>second line all by themselves and couldn't redeploy even if they
>wanted to.>.

I concur. Reserves are much more a medieval or roman thing than with elephant
and barbarian armies.

Funny it's that way, huh? ;)

J

[Todd Schneider]

Does this apply to the Muslim Africa/Siciliy armies as
well, or just the Hohenstaufen's?

:-)

Todd


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

---------------------------------
>* Don't roll dice against a Sicilian when death is on
the line.>>

All of Ewan's advice is spot on, but no part more so
than the above...

J

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.

[John Murphy]

I am a terrible Warrior player but I have found that (except for LI
which generally gets force-marched and is useful with someone
heavier directly behind) deploying units in quincunx
or "checkerboard" (second line covering the gaps in the first) does
at least three things - first it enforces having a second line with
reserves which is a useful thing I often otherwise forget (charging
out of a gap or against an enemy already engaged by the front line
being handy things to do for instance), second if done correctly it
may assure units in the first line are supported on both flanks if
needed by friends who are not going to be chased away, and third it
prevents traffic jams by regulating inter-unit spacing.

The times I have neglected this in the heat of battle have generally
been times I was made to pay the price (a doubles game a couple
years ago against Scott & Jon comes to mind with burst-throughs and
cascading failed waver tests, shudder).

Of course, it should go without saying that nothing like this is a
solution for every player of every army.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
> So what would be some specifics for avoiding the traffic jams - I
> keep having this problem myself. Would it be a maxim to always
keep
> at least a 2 element gap between units in a second line of advance
or
> defence? And if it is more complex than this, could you elaborate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> > Amen Brother,
> >
> > Road blocking your troops can be the fastest way to defeat,
> especially for irregular armies that have routers bursting through
> their irregular friends causing them to break in a most horrible
way!
> >

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> For example: if you want to play on mostly open terrain, the
optimal 4 terrain
> picks are: road - open space - open space - hill. You can reason
through why
> that's the correct answer in the abstract, without having an
actual game and/or
> opponent.

A couple of questions, after all if I have to ask maybe there is
_someone_ else who would like to know too - First, I have had the
road bit explained to me before but why the hill?

Second, what if you want to play on a minimal amount of open
terrain? Or alternatively if you want open terrain to the front but
maximally secure flanks, say for a small army or some other reason?

For instance I have heard a few people mention minor water features.
Why would this be preferable to a major water feature, for instance,
in meeting these goals? I think there was something about using it
with a marsh but what if you do not want a marsh in your front then
is this any better than rolling for something else on your flanks?
Maybe not a one-size-fits-all answer to this but it never hurts to
ask.

Just wondering, since as stated this is something that can be
related "away from table" as it were.

And inevitably I will receive an "on-table" lesson or five this
weekend!