Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Darn, no help from the gurus on my Teuts list?

Also, I tried to acces both Mirliton and Demonworld to look at pseudo-
fantastic Teuts figures (I kinda like the Alexander Nevskii look if
it is like I remember seeing the movie - iirc they got a good dose of
wicked from the old Communist propoganda machine at its best as they
were ramping up for WW2). Couldn't get pics to come up on either
site. Is there something I need to do like enable cookies or are they
just not available?

Also, the way I am looking at running them is there definitely a
scale advantage one way or the other? Just from practicality I don't
know that it makes a huge difference painting-skill wise but 25's
seem to always be in need of constant repair.

[Larry Essick]

Well, if the gurus are not answering then that leaves it open for us
others.

IMO, the early list is at a severe disadvantage in competition.
Having played NASAMW list Teuts for years, the late list (IMO) is much
more competitive.

Reg D Prussian LMI is much more effective than the earlier Irr D
Prussians. In 6E units they are very maneuverable and able to
withstand considerable punishment. Prussian LC in 6E Reg D units are
also much more effective than the many 2E Irr D units you plan to take
in the early list. Again, the reason, IMO, is maneuverability.

The late period Mounted Crossbowmen replace the Livonian LC units
providing higher morale and less cost and work extremely well with the
larger Prussian LC units.

IMO placing the Brother Sergeants with subgenerals is less than
optimum. A more effective use is to leave them as a separate unit
well away from the fight. The subgenerals are used as independent
elements that can join other bodies. An especially useful tactic is
to have them take over a 3E knight unit. This lets you avoid buying
mixed A/B units and makes a very formidable infantry busting unit.

The trade off is that you don't get EHK in the late period. IMO, that
is an acceptable exchange. Also, IMO, the Irr A option is over-rated
as the army, if used with forethought, will not need the bonus that an
up roll with Irr A produces. It is better, IMO, to maintain better
control over the knights.

Larry

[Larry Essick]

Well, since I was bold enough to critique the early Teuts, here is an
example list for later Teuts. It provides 3 generals @ 1600 points
and 18 maneuver units.

CinC w 1E Brother Knights Reg A L,Sh
SG w 1E Brother Knights Reg A L,Sh
SG w bodyguard only Reg A L,Sh
3E Confrere Knights Reg B L,Sh
2E Brother Sergeants Reg B L,Sh
4 units of 2E Mounted Crossbowmen Reg B Cb
2 units of 6E Prussian Cavalry Reg D JLS,Sh
4 units of 6E Prussian Spearmen Reg D JLS,Sh
2 units of 6E Prussian Bowmen Reg D B,Sh 1/2 JLS

Total is 1604 points and somewhere over 90 scouting. It might be
possible to combine the lone SG with the Confrere Knights to save 10
points or to buy the SG with an additional element of Brother Knights
and avoid the whole cost of the Confrere unit. IMO, the advantage of
having the unit outweighs any disadvantage.

There is a notable lack of strike units, but when used deliberately
the army has tremendous shooting capability.

The use of Prussian bowmen rather than more spearmen is another area
that merits exploration as does substituting LHI crossbowmen or a
single large unit of Colonists.

The army does very well with a bit of brush to operate from. Real
strike capability comes from the Prussian LC that can shoot most other
mounted to disorder and charge home w/o prompting.

Larry

[John Murphy]

Thanks, Larry.

I'll explain why I made the choices I did in light of your experience
to the contrary. Some things are, yeah, I am kind of just living with
them. Other items though are actually a matter of preference with how
I want to play these.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> Reg D Prussian LMI is much more effective than the earlier Irr D
> Prussians. In 6E units they are very maneuverable and able to
> withstand considerable punishment.

My idea with these is simply to fill out the minimums. I am not
trying to run this as a foot army by any stretch of the imagination.

The irregs are cheaper, and less figs, so better for something to be
kept out of the way.

Plus I gotta have those "dregs". I am trying to find a way to juggle
around and take all 32 elements. I think maybe using half-2E and half-
4E for the LC?

> Prussian LC in 6E Reg D units are
> also much more effective than the many 2E Irr D units you plan to
take
> in the early list. Again, the reason, IMO, is maneuverability.
> The late period Mounted Crossbowmen replace the Livonian LC units
> providing higher morale and less cost and work extremely well with
the
> larger Prussian LC units.

Yeah, you are definitely right on with this one and I agree it is a
shortcoming relative to the later list. But like I said, you can't
have everything and it is the price you pay for having enough knights
to run an attacking army rather than a counter-punching army.

And actually running the costs it is suprising how little difference
the extrra irreg cmd factor cost amounts to compared to the extra
cost of multi-armed JLS/B regs.

I think the CB is limited in its utility although very cost-effective
just to fill out LC units.


> IMO placing the Brother Sergeants with subgenerals is less than
> optimum. A more effective use is to leave them as a separate unit
> well away from the fight. The subgenerals are used as independent
> elements that can join other bodies. An especially useful tactic is
> to have them take over a 3E knight unit. This lets you avoid buying
> mixed A/B units and makes a very formidable infantry busting unit.

This I totally disagree with (though what do I know). I do not _want_
to avoid buying A/B units - in fact I am _trying_ to buy them! And by
making my knights as cheap as possible I get enough to be less
circumspect in when and where I charge.



> The trade off is that you don't get EHK in the late period. IMO,
that
> is an acceptable exchange.

I think if you point up the army and wind up with only 4-5 all-SHK
units then that is not such an acceptable exchange. Admittedly, you
can still use sergeants but then you really get cut down when
disordered and you totally lose the ability to be effective on foot.
Now, admittedly I have not made much use of that in HYWE which is
more designed for it, but still it is a viable tactics for some
circumstances that I hate to throw away.


Also, IMO, the Irr A option is over-rated
> as the army, if used with forethought, will not need the bonus that
an
> up roll with Irr A produces. It is better, IMO, to maintain better
> control over the knights.


Ahhhh.... but with A/B units they are much more controllable. Since
they do not have auto-unprompted charges all you have to watch for is
that first charge in attack orders.

And I think Irr A troops in the front rank are some of the best in
the game.

There are _some_ things that SHK L just do not get 3 CPF against
unless you gamble on an up roll with impetuous Irr A. And that (and
the fact you have enough knights to stagger charges over multiple
turns) is the spirit of running these.

[Larry Essick]

> Thanks, Larry.
>
> I'll explain why I made the choices I did in light of your
experience
> to the contrary. Some things are, yeah, I am kind of just living
with
> them. Other items though are actually a matter of preference with
how
> I want to play these.

:-)

Yep. I agree with all of your points based on how you want to play
the army. IMO, you are better off not upgrading to SHK if that is
your intent.

The Livonian LC can only be used with Prussians in the early list. In
the late list Livonians and Prussians can't be mixed. IMO JLS,B,Sh is
a lot to buy for a LC unit that is only D morale. You are better off
taking Lithuanians in the middle period for 4 points per element more.
Take the AG as LC JLS,B,Sh as well.

Larry

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 3 Larry Essick said: ---

> Well, if the gurus are not answering then that leaves it open for us
> others.
>
> IMO, the early list is at a severe disadvantage in competition.
> Having played NASAMW list Teuts for years, the late list (IMO) is much
> more competitive.

When it comes to Teuts, Larry _is_ a guru. He's played this list for a long
time, under all its different permutations. And he is absolutely right here:
the Late list is vastly superior to the Early list, and for exactly the reasons
he states here.

A couple of comments:

The reason _not_ to buy 2 stand units of Irr LC isn't just a matter of cost
(though I'm not happy spending 25 points command factor for just 4 figures).
It's also that these units are (a) vulnerable and (b) being irregular, stuck
with very few ways of getting out of trouble. I don't mind a 2 stand unit that
can turn around and go back 200p in a counter. If it can only turn around and
go back 40p, then I'm unhappy.

I want to reiterate what Larry says about Irr As. Far too often I see
inexperienced players taking Irr As in the hopes that dice will somehow achieve
for them what they don't have confidence that their tactics can achieve. That's
a sucker's bet, and it's not teaching you anything about how to play the game
better.

Most of the time a good battle plan well executed will leave you in a combat
situation where you're trying to avoid rolling down rather than hoping to roll
up. Irr B are a better choice than Irr A in these situations (which are the
situations most of us should be striving for).

There are very select situations in which a combination of Irr A units working
simultaneously, or a single Irr A unit expected to be in combat over several
consecutive bounds, can make sense. In both these situations it's a matter of
needing one up roll among several, and thus the odds being in your favor. These
are very select situations, however, and one needs to set them up carefully.


-Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

> When it comes to Teuts, Larry _is_ a guru.

Gee, thanks Mark!

The early list can be made to work, but I'd recommend larger LC units
or use of the Lithuanians, as I've indicated in another email.

Thanks for agreeing with me on the Irr A issue. IMO it is 3 points
better spent elsewhere.

In the late list, one way to look at it is as Imperial Romans with
better mounted. That is how I used the list after the option to go
with Reg D Prussians came out.

Another way to look at the late list is as Mongols with better punch.
Minimizing on the Prussian foot and maximizing the Prussian and
Teutonic LC along with blocks of SHK gives a very mobile and hard
hitting combination. This works for someone familiar with the Belgian
style of Mongol use (is Markowitz out there?).

The early list is much more like the old book list. I ran that list
with EHK and numerous Prussians. The old list allowed some HTW to the
Prussians, which you no longer see. I kept a small 2E unit around for
P -- although it almost never worked out.

I think that a reasonable lists can be built from the early Teuts with
strong LC from the Lithuanians. I would suggest keeping the Prussian
LC in 4E JLS,Sh units as useful LI killers and good supporting troops
to the Lithuanians.

I found that you didn't really need more than 3 or 4 2E blocks of EHK
in the old book list (not including generals). IIRC, I tended to run
only 5 or 6 total knight units using that list when you included
generals.

Chris Damour is the only one I know who regularly mixed his sergeants
with his knights. I think he ran a 4E unit of 1/2 EHK 1/2 HC.

Larry