Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

So, rather than the "non-missile army" I'd like to ask about a different idea.
Suppose you know your opponent has a strong missile army (say, Derek's Koreans
for example). You can take any army you want, missile or otherwise, and you
want to optimize it for beating a strong missile army. What army would you
take?


-Mark Stone

This theory is what drove me to look at Feudal German. The
combination of RgD MI LTS/sh MI CB in large cheap blocks to absorbe
the shooting, HK or EHK or SHK L/sh, and SHC L/sh make this the
ultimate anti-shooting army. All one need do is run a SHC unit into
the bowmen from 120p and the game is on. This has displaced my
Marian Roman project mainly because of the TF stuff, so I would not
be surprised to see more anti-missile armies in the short term.

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> So, rather than the "non-missile army" I'd like to ask about a
different idea.
> Suppose you know your opponent has a strong missile army (say,
Derek's Koreans
> for example). You can take any army you want, missile or otherwise,
and you
> want to optimize it for beating a strong missile army. What army
would you
> take?
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 21
>
> This theory is what drove me to look at Feudal German. The
> combination of RgD MI LTS/sh MI CB in large cheap blocks to absorbe
> the shooting, HK or EHK or SHK L/sh, and SHC L/sh make this the
> ultimate anti-shooting army. All one need do is run a SHC unit into
> the bowmen from 120p and the game is on. This has displaced my
> Marian Roman project mainly because of the TF stuff, so I would not
> be surprised to see more anti-missile armies in the short term.
>
> Wanax
>
>

Boyd has offered one of the approaches I've been contemplating here. Let me
amplify on my own question a bit.

What's needed for an anti-missile army is troops who are resistant to shooting.
There are two ways to accomplish this: either by weapons factor, or by size of
body. The former is just a matter of looking at the chart, and SHC come pretty
much at the top of the list (only SHI are better). The latter is a matter of
looking at number of figures per stand, number of stands, and cost.

SHC are good because they are the only 4 to a stand mounted. They are also good
because they tend to come 2 deep, presenting either 8 figures per element's
frontage, or -- more often -- 7 figures because backed by EHC or HC.

Elephants and chariots all come 5 figures to a stand. Some El (and in the future
perhaps some Ch) come with LI on the base, yielding 7 figures per stand. But
HCh and El are typically run in a single rank, so this doesn't actually get you
all that many figures per elements' frontage.

For a long time I had dismissed the lowly LCh as being an all-around useless
troop type. Watching the Greek armies at Cold Wars started to change my
thinking. In fact, when in skirmish LCh are quite resistant to shooting since
they never count shieldess; bow vs. skirmishing LCh is a 1. And if your chariot
unit is 3 ranks deep, that counts as 13 figures on a single element's frontage.
All that for only 2 factors worse than SHC (who do become shieldless when
shooting, making it only a 1 factor difference) and for about half the cost of
the equivalent frontage of SHC.

So the surprising conclusion I came to is that LCh may be the ideal troop type
for taking down "all shooting/only shooting" armies.

There are some caveats here. Ideally you want 4 horse LCh, at least in the front
rank. You want your LCh crew to have bow at least. And probably you want the
LCh to be regular.

Having said that, there are at least a couple of armies in Biblical Warrior that
fit the bill, I'm hoping there will be at least one in Classical Warrior, and I
expect several in Oriental Warrior.

Food for thought. Too bad chariot lead is so expensive.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/7/2004 10:33:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> So the surprising conclusion I came to is that LCh may be
> the ideal troop type
> for taking down "all shooting/only shooting" armies.>>

hey, stop that! This is a question of national security! lol

But you are correct - and there are many more LCh armies to follow....

J

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> So the surprising conclusion I came to is that LCh may be the ideal troop type
> for taking down "all shooting/only shooting" armies.
>
> There are some caveats here. Ideally you want 4 horse LCh, at least in the
front
> rank. You want your LCh crew to have bow at least. And probably you want the
> LCh to be regular.

I've been a fan of 4hLCh for a while - the thoughts came from the
'all-Aztec' period in the UK under 7th, where the ability to
charge LMI in the open at will, but also break-off and evade when
needed, were great.

Derek uses Chariot armies often. One important factor of the Lch is
it is a cause of unease, so all those IrgC troops are effected
already. Get another cause and suddenly they are no better than IrgD
troops for wavers.

Of course, the major downside is brush/rocky/steep terrain.

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
> > So the surprising conclusion I came to is that LCh may be the
ideal troop type
> > for taking down "all shooting/only shooting" armies.
> >
> > There are some caveats here. Ideally you want 4 horse LCh, at
least in the front
> > rank. You want your LCh crew to have bow at least. And probably
you want the
> > LCh to be regular.
>
> I've been a fan of 4hLCh for a while - the thoughts came from the
> 'all-Aztec' period in the UK under 7th, where the ability to
> charge LMI in the open at will, but also break-off and evade when
> needed, were great.

[Todd Schneider]

And anythign with 4 legs and Armor.

<<<Of course, the major downside is brush/rocky/steep
terrain.>>>


Todd

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/7/2004 11:20:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
thresh1642@... writes:

> And anythign with 4 legs and Armor.
>
> <<<Of course, the major downside is brush/rocky/steep
> terrain.>>>

Todd, you meant 4 legs and Lance...lol

LCh can get away, though. Really an under-utilized troop type.

[Todd Schneider]

They all look like they're carrying lances to me!


But, looking through the lists, Later Hebrew, Dark Age
Greek both have 4 Horse LCh...In an "Open" Tournament,
I'd probably go with the Dark Age Greek, because they
can take thier foot in Close and Loose order, and can
upgrade their Armor to HI. ANd the LI options ofr
them are decent..the SLingers in particular would do
pretty well in shieliding against Knights...

The other list that look interesting is the
Hittites...the list rule that allows their HCh to
skirmish could be useful in the right (IE not mine)
hands, and their supporting options Foot Wise are
pretty good IMO.

Todd


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

---------------------------------
In a message dated 5/7/2004 11:20:24 AM Eastern
Daylight Time, thresh1642@... writes:

> And anythign with 4 legs and Armor.
>
> <<<Of course, the major downside is
brush/rocky/steep
> terrain.>>>

Todd, you meant 4 legs and Lance...lol

LCh can get away, though. Really an under-utilized
troop type.


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