Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Kaeser]

If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically. It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Todd Kaeser]

Greg writes...

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain?
*** In volume 3 the legionaries can fight as LHI when used with Spanish to portray them accurately as rough terrain goers.

Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability?
*** Certain lists do provide the Hypaspists to be either LMI Lts, sh or MI P,Sh.

Is it not true that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot, fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?
*** you got me there

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry, but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.
*** the Swiss scoffed at heavy horse, they shouldn't have to waiver test. All that has been proposed is to allow the Swiss to have their pike blocks be able to behave closer to what they were capable of doing. Personally I don't think they should have all this flexibility with rough terrain, but their halberdiers should be either detachments or be allowed to expand out or exchange ranks when the pike block has either not followed up or been recoiled. That shows how they behaved historically and is such a minor variation w/in the list. I'm personally all for finding better ways to make the game more historical. The hypaspists and LHI legions are just such an instance for this.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?
*** the game is too complex for an easy rules set.

***Greg, you have excellent points most of which I agree with. I often try to remember that this is a game comprising 4,500 years of history and not everthing can be accounted for, but now that the rules are being rewritten I'd like to see if we can incorporate a little bit more.
Todd

[Phil Gardocki]

Actually, a rule change that should fix the problem with the Swiss, and other large infantry block armies would be to allow the unit to followup with an expansion of one or two elements, like LMI.  The one caveat I would add that in the case of close order foot, the elements expanding cannot be any element that could already contribute to the fighting to the front.  I.E., if you are eligible to fight as pike, then you cannot expand, the 2HCT would be eligible to expand.  This would also keep bow armed infantry from expanding as they could still shoot to the front.  

Phil Gardocki

[Don Coon]

Todd Kaeser wrote:
> Personally I don't think they should have all this flexibility
> with rough terrain, but their halberdiers should be either detachments
> or be allowed to expand out or exchange ranks when the pike block has
> either not followed up or been recoiled.

On the subject of detachments. We never use them here as we do not see
their value. Obviously we are missing something. Since a detachment
has to stay 1 tactical move from the parent I do not see what good it
does. Can a detachment detach when the parent is in HTH? Now that
would be valuable.

Don

[Todd Kaeser]

Don,
Detachments have their value and also their disadvantages. Their
advantages lie in being able to protect the flanks of the parent body or
even get on the flank of an enemy and hitting them with the one-two type
punch. The Swiss are better with detachments of LI to protect them from
missile fire, the Aztec apprentices are quite useful as detachments as well.
Indian chariots with detachments of Ir B LMI Jls,Sh are very useful as the
chariots can move near rough terrain and the LMI can go into it to protect
them.
The disadvantages are big as well. When the parent body routs so does
the detachment and if the detachment routs they join with the parent
disordering it - bad news for the Swiss shieldless pike blocks.
The Swiss halberdiers frequently moved to the front of the halted pike
block (while in combat) through the pike or moved to the flanks to attack
the enemy. The halberdiers were the counterattack of the halted or
recoiling pike block. This is not allowed under the current rules - whether
they are detachments or are allowed to move to the front is hopefully being
considered
Todd K
----------
From: Donald Coon <jendon@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)
Date: Sat, Dec 30, 2000, 8:11 AM


Todd Kaeser wrote:
> Personally I don't think they should have all this flexibility
> with rough terrain, but their halberdiers should be either detachments
> or be allowed to expand out or exchange ranks when the pike block has
> either not followed up or been recoiled.

On the subject of detachments. We never use them here as we do not see
their value. Obviously we are missing something. Since a detachment
has to stay 1 tactical move from the parent I do not see what good it
does. Can a detachment detach when the parent is in HTH? Now that
would be valuable.

Don


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[joncleaves]

Ooh, Don, I use detachments all the time.... We need to play!

[Todd Kaeser]

The rule change would only add to the historical inaccuracy of the Swiss as they did not expand out their halberdiers in a follow up - there was no need as they were rolling over their opponents. I wouldn't want to expand shieldless MI in a follow up - it's too dangerous, but if I was halted or recoiling and wanted help I should be able to expand out the halberdiers or allow them to move to the front and get a rank of pike behind them fighting as they did historically.
Todd
----------
From: PHGamer@aol.com
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)
Date: Sat, Dec 30, 2000, 10:36 AM


Actually, a rule change that should fix the problem with the Swiss, and other
large infantry block armies would be to allow the unit to followup with an
expansion of one or two elements, like LMI. The one caveat I would add that
in the case of close order foot, the elements expanding cannot be any element
that could already contribute to the fighting to the front. I.E., if you are
eligible to fight as pike, then you cannot expand, the 2HCT would be eligible
to expand. This would also keep bow armed infantry from expanding as they
could still shoot to the front.
Phil Gardocki
eGroups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I agree!
Kelly