Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Let's be even more clear:

If you are spending a great deal of time arguing for or against the LI-recall
choice rule for MY sake, I cannot spare the rules-time to listen. We are
looking at the timing of the choice, but are not planning any change to the
rule itself. If you are debating amongst yourselves for whatever purpose,
feel free. I am not blowing anyone off, but I am not changing the structure
of the rules either. Save that for x-rule time.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., mike400802@a... wrote:
> everybody,
>
> Let's get real about LI. If a block of pikes came over the
hill and saw etc etc etc <SNIP>

Mike,

I agree with you but the point is, the LI would NOT stand and be
charged by pike and would NOT run at full pace away from them but
instead would go back as fast as the pike go forward. If this takes
a charge from the pike, so be it. LI are traditionaly low morale
because they were not expected to take the fight to the shock
troops. They are an annoyance (although I've seen some VERY
impressive Irr A Scots Highlanders duff up elephants!) and must be
considered as such.

And, as a side line, there are a lot of D grade pike, spear and
Legionaries out there who will benefit from this change, not having
to waver test if prompted to charge.

The whole thrust of this thread is agreeing that, under 7th, LI could
stop a general advance and so were perhaps "stronger" than they
should have been. But that the requirment to have LI decide to
Recall or to waver test BEFORE they could prep shoot removed the
danger of the target failing a waver test. There are a lot of "what
if..." and "but if this happens...." but in the end, we must agree to
what the rules state. This can be a way to "speed up" what can be a
very slow game if one player has lots of LI and uses them well.

I also agree that, with the change to the Demoralisation rule,
players will be more conservative with their LI. Another change I'm
not happy with but have let slide.

In the end though, even if I am not pleased with the final
result of the LI debate, that will not stop me from playing with
and within the rules. I've got WAY more gripes than this but which I
don't address because the mechanism to incorporate them will be
difficult. However, when Jon opens the X Files rules.......

And if you think I'm "nit-picky" now, just wait for the "angled
charges" rules. ;)

Jon,

Many thanks if this is the end result. I can live with the rest.

Cheers

Steve


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Just so we are all clear:
>
> The LI-recall choice rule is in the game to stay. The only thing
we MAY do
> is move the choice to the end of prep shooting.

Kevin,

I think your last statement made my point. I never said that LI stood
around and did nothing. They probably caused some casualties, and against
inexperienced troops may have caused some confusion and a slowing of the
battleline. But as we play peltasts, they are loose order troops three or
four to a stand, and they are not under the LI rule. What you see on the
gaming table, as one player mentioned, is a solid wall of close order troops
with pike and shield being stopped across the whole front by a couple of LI
units. What you see on the table is a pike force representing 5,000 to 8,000
men being stopped cold by a skirmishing force of 400 to 800 men. This is
silly in the extreme. Historically, Alexander's pike units contain around
10,000 men each. Even if the skirmishers caused casualties, it would not
have caused the units to slow, the rear ranks would have trampled the front
ranks. What happened was the next man in the file filled in the hole and
everyone kept moving.

I don't expect anyone to change the rules (I got your last email Jon).
But I find it amusing that players argue these issues based on how they like
playing rather than on what happened historically, Of course, all of us can
cite an example to prove our point, but one should not use an exceptional
case as the basis for a general rule. Under the old rules I could take two
elements of irregular D light infantry with no shield and no weapon and
stopped a 48 figure unit dead cold and make them charge me with absolutely no
risk to me. This is not historical. The new rules still allow the LI to
stop the pike block, but now at least they have to recall and allow the pikes
to move normally the next turn. If you have been reading the emails you have
seen the comments about LI causing casualties to the close order infantry.
Let's see how that works. Four LI armed with javelin prep shoot at a 16 man
HI pike/shield unit. Four at one is 6 versus 12 if the pikes are in column,
versus 16 if in line. Damage none. Up roll of 1 equals 8, up 2 equals 10,
up three equals 12. If you are extremely lucky with an up roll of three and
the unit is in column you do one fatigue. Certainly not enough to slow the
unit, and certainly no reason for a waver response or a disordering result.
If the unit is MI, you still need up two or three to do a casualty, which is
still not likely to happen. Yet they argued that they should not have to
decide to recall at the end of movement because they may get a shooting
result that would allow them to stay within 40 paces of the close order unit.
If these players get disordering results often enough for this to be a valid
tactic and rules issue, then I want to use their dice when I play them.

In closing, I would like to mention that many other periods, Napoleonic
and Civil War periods come to mind, used skirmishers, and sometimes these
were even elite troops. These skirmish lines were never expected to stop a
serious advance or cause major casualties. So I have never understood why
the LI are so powerful in our Ancients rules.

Mike

This argument only holds water if one buys that those same light
troops actually did just stand around doing nothing, with the false
belief that their mere presence would be sufficient to impede heavier
advancing troops. Unfortunately this is quite untrue. They weren't
called peltasts for nothing. To the contrary these light troops were
specially trained to dart back and forth across the advancing enemy
lines and "pelt" the enemy with their javelins and slings. This
would have the effect of forcing the enemy line to slow to a
defensive crawl. This tactic was so successful that the Persians
attempted to adopt a variant of it to fend off the Macedonian
phalanxes at Issus; none too successful though.

Kevin




--- In WarriorRules@y..., mike400802@a... wrote:
> everybody,
>
> Let's get real about LI. If a block of pikes came over the
hill and saw
> a scattered bunch of javelin armed infantry without armor they
would not even
> slow down for a moment. They would love nothing more than to get a
chance to
> actually get into pike range of those guys. Armored infantry is
not going to
> slow down for those types of troops, especially on the
battlefield. Yes,
> they may be forced to come out of march mode, but lights were not a
threat.
> Screening means that you keep the other guys scouts out of sight
while you
> deploy, set up camp, or forage. Of course in difficult terrain
that
> disrupted your formation, then lights could be more of a problem,
but not in
> the center of an open battle field. Light troops on the flank
could harass
> units and threaten to envelop, but standing around in an open field
in front
> of close formation troops is a joke.
> In reading about Alexander's battles or other pike battles,
have you ever
> read one word about the pike blocks, 10,000 men strong, being
delayed because
> there were 200 LI skirmishers in front of them, I don't think so?
You guys
> that hold up large formations of infantry are not great generals
with finely
> honed formations. You are good game players who are taking
advantage of
> rules that make LI much more powerful than they ever were. If
units of LI
> could stop massed formations and shoot them into disarray or a
shaken
> condition, why would anyone ever use anything else? Why are most
LI units
> historically low grade in both morale and training? Because they
were the
> troops that were not good enough to be part of the main battle
line. So does
> it seem reasonable that the troops that were not good enough to be
part of
> the main battle line would be capable of slowing down and
intimidating those
> troops, I really don't think so.
> Lets look at the comment about light cavalry not knowing if the
LI was
> going to recall. In reality, all of this stuff is happening at the
same
> time. Cavalry does not go immediately into a gallop. As the
cavalry
> approached the LI, they could clearly see if the lights were
starting to pull
> back. To have any chance of getting away from the LC, the LI would
have to
> start falling back as soon as the LC looked like it might charge.
> A more realistic rule would be that anytime a loose or close
formation
> unit gets within charge reach of a LI unit, the LI unit immediately
takes a
> morale test.
> This is a game that can be a lot of fun, but the rules do not
simulate
> reality. Don't take the rules for facts and look for a historical
exception
> that proves the rules, look at the great mass of battles and see
what kinds
> of troops the real commanders had and used.
>
> Mike

---
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:57:11
mike400802 wrote:
"...Let's see how that works. Four LI armed with javelin prep shoot at a 16 man
HI pike/shield unit. Four at one is 6 versus 12 if the pikes are in column,
versus 16 if in line. Damage none. Up roll of 1 equals 8, up 2 equals 10, up
three equals 12. If you are extremely lucky with an up roll of three and the
unit is in column you do one fatigue. Certainly not enough to slow the unit,
and certainly no reason for a waver response or a disordering result..."

The line would look like this:

PPPP.PPPP
PPPP.PPPP

J J.J J

If it looked like this:

PPPP.PPPP
PPPP.PPPP

J J.J J
J J.J J

then the factors go to 6 @ 1 for 9...still not very good. Double the size of the
LI unit so there are two overlaps:

____PPPP.PPPP____
____PPPP.PPPP____

J J.J J .J J.J J
J J.J J .J J.J J

then its 12 @ 1 for 18. A up three nets 2 CPFs. That'll leave a mark.

Change the JLs to Bow, the above diagram results in 16 @ 1 for 24. You could
roll down 1 and get a CPF. Up one is 2 CPFs and up three is 3 CPFs.

If you want to get all the Midianite infantry on ther table, you gotta buy big
blocks.


Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at
http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html

Mike,

Not all CO are HI Pike and shield. Try MI armed with Bow and without
shields. There are lots of lists that have these and there are some
players who (God alone knows why) actually insist on using them. A 6
element unit of LI JLS at 40 paces will cause 2cpf on a 4 element
unit of reg MI with a throw of +1 (assuming the MI is 2 elements wide
and the LI is 3 wide). This is enough to cause the MI to waver. If
they shake, the LI should be allowed to take advantage of that. The
whole thrust of my arguments was that the LI should be able to
benefit from this. If the shooting result is no effect, the LI
bugger off to the rear and get ready to do it again. Is
this "rulesmanship"? Damn right!

I suffer from being an aggressive player (Samurai, Kushite, Blemye
etc are NOT the choice of conservative players) and I want my troops,
regardless of what type, grade or weapon to make the most of their
abilities under the RULES! Like all players, I want to have the
flexibility in the rules to exploit good generalship, good shooting
or just plain, everyday, doo-dah luck!

My point is, and always was, that the LI should NOT be as powerful as
they were under 7th BUT they should have the luxury to exploit good
shooting BEFORE they decide to waver test or run away. Would you
insist (or agree?) that D grade troops waver test BEFORE being
prompted to charge? Or would you prefer to wait and see what
develops before charges are written?

Do I want some rules to be charged? Yes if I can but only so a degree
of balance can be built into them. If the rules don't change, I'll
say "Oh well, now let's see what I can do to work with them." I
don't seek to change the rules because I prefer a troop type or
favour a certain stratigem but because the rule does not allow for
variables like shooting. If you don't allow for these vaiables, why
use the red/green shooting dice? I can guess that Jon is sorry he
ever heard from me (and he'd be on a long list!!) but I feel that,
UNTIL THE RULES ARE PUBLISHED, they are still amendable. Once done,
never changed so now is the time to ensure a balance is achieved
otherwise, 1.1, 1.2 etc. I have to bow to Jon on the direction of
the use of LI but I would be much happier at the change. And what
will the change mean to the CO or LO? Nothing. Nothing that is in
the current rules will change EXCEPT that one item which effects the
LI, not the CO or LO.

At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. Some rules we all
will be happy with, some rules some of us won't like be but we will
still meet across a table like gentlemen to prove the superiority (or
otherwise) of the Romans legions.

Steve

Steve,

First, let say that I agree with you that I want my troops to use the
rules to my and their best advantage. I also tend to be an aggressive
player, but I tend to go with cavalry armies. I certainly would take
advantage of any player that put a four element unit of shieldless MI out in
the open by itself where a six element LI could get to it. On the other
hand, instead of hoping for a +1 roll, I would be more likely to smash into
it with a decent combat unit and rout it on the spot. However, that is not
something a good player is normally going to do. What I am interested in is
the larger issue of very small units of LI being able to totally stop the
advance of units that they can't touch under any circumstances. It is much
more likely that you are going to see large units of close formation troops
positioned next to each other so that missile units don't get over lap than
the other way around.

Being an aggressive player, there is little I hate more than a player
hiding at the back side of the table while three two element LI units hold up
my entire army for 10 turns. There is no reason why big strong units should
have to slow their approach moves or charge those types of units. While a
unit should be able to make the most of their abilities under the rules, the
rules should not make units significantly more powerful than they were in
real life. I doubt in real life that the LI unit waited around to see what
effect their fire had. In fact they were probably already falling back as
they threw javelins or shot their missiles. I really doubt, except in
desperate situations, that the thought of charging large groups of close
order troops ever crossed the LI's mind. If that small shieldless MI unit is
out there by itself, then the LI can out flank it and then it has no reason
to recall.

As far as luck goes, yes I love it when I roll up three in a melee,
especially with Irg A troops. But this game already has an immense amount of
luck. Of course there are times when the lucky arrow killed the CinC, but
much of the strategy I hear is players basing their plan on getting up rolls,
thus winning fights they should lose. Barker obviously did not understand
percentages and odds when he came up with the game system. There is no such
thing as generally steady performing troops as most rolls are going to be up
or down.

I also hear the comment all the time about flexibility. Very few armies
had flexibility as we define it. As we define flexibility, it is the ability
to change the orders and standard practices of a unit already engaged in
combat, which the general can't see, at a moment's notice and have the unit
immediately react in a manner totally different from expected. Even modern
armies with radios and small units can't react as well as we expect poorly
trained and motivated units in this period to perform.

Your question about grade D troops wavering before charging leaves me a
bit puzzled. If they are not LI, they don't have to waver or recall, so
there is no test. If you prompt them to charge, then before charging they
waver test. However, if they had a missile result that allows them to charge
unprompted, like a unit is disordered or shaken, then they don't have to
waiver test. If you are talking about LI, then I feel that the LI were
already falling back before they could see what the effect of their shooting
had, if they could tell at all. I would also expect that LI units composed
of D type troops had leaders with orders that did not contemplate them
charging much of anything, except maybe the ravens feeding on the dead bodies
when it was time to start looting.

In the end, I totally agree with your closing paragraph.

Mike

>
>At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. Some rules we all
>will be happy with, some rules some of us won't like be but we will
>still meet across a table like gentlemen to prove the superiority (or
>otherwise) of the Romans legions.
>

I've kept out of this discussion, because it touches on a topic I
have discussed ad nauseam now on this list, on the ancmed list, and
on the Armati list.

What I would offer to all comers, is a challenge to cite one piece of
evidence that illustrates light infantry, in the course of a
set-piece battle, meleeing with close-order infantry, during the
ancient period. You can have shooting, you can have standing around
in the way of, but I have yet to be presented with a piece of
evidence showing any kind of melee.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the paragraph I have excerpted
above, I think it leaves an important statement unsaid (although I
believe it is implicit in Steve's general approach): this is that
although we are playing a game, we are playing a game based on
history, which means that the rules ought to reflect some kind of
understanding of historical evidence. Back when Phil Barker first
wrote his rules with Bob O'Brien and Ed Mills, ancient wargamers all
had one conception of ancient warfare. However, I think we have
actually achieved a better understanding over time. There still
remain obscure (in the sense of dark) areas to argue about, however,
and one of them is the role of light infantry on the battlefield.

For years I have been campaigning for the view that the kind of
engagement that a table-top wargame with figures represents does not
include the typical combat that involved light infantry. Ancient
battles are a two-stage process. The first stage involves some
skirmishing, which is usually to little purpose. Then the shock
troops clash, and the side that wins this engagement, wins the
battle. The problem is that in the past games have tried to simulate
both parts of these as a continuum, when in fact they are discrete
episodes, which very rarely have any impact on one another.

One of the problems I found playing with 7th was that light troops,
and especially large units of light infantry, were too difficult to
push out of the way. In a typical 3.5 hour tournament game, the close
order troops were often just coming to grips with one another when
time was called. This was not what I took up ancient wargaming to
play. I much prefer the Warrior solution, of forcing the lights to
get out the way or take a waver test. I think this better represents
ancient warfare in the sense that it makes it easier for the clash of
shock troops - the essence of ancient warfare - to happen.

The one thing that I feel might make a difference in my games,
compared with the experience of others, is that I exclusively have
used 15mm, and I understand one gets a very different game with 25mm.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

I personally am more interested in the debate surrounding LI as it
fills in gaps in my own ignorance.

However, your admirable commitment to avoiding subsequent rules
releases does add some heat to any debate on this listing.

I would like to see rules that give "historical" outcomes (however
shady that definition may be) rather than suit my own armies.

And here I must confess to my own weakness: although being of
scientific mind, I have not done the "hard yards" in historical
research. I offer this to explain my own probing of your rules (and
also my suggestions of alternatives, which yes I will now save up for
the X-rules) as well as my requests for information which is
pertinent to my own dilemmas.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Let's be even more clear:
>
> If you are spending a great deal of time arguing for or against the
LI-recall
> choice rule for MY sake, I cannot spare the rules-time to listen.
We are
> looking at the timing of the choice, but are not planning any
change
to the
> rule itself. If you are debating amongst yourselves for whatever
purpose,
> feel free. I am not blowing anyone off, but I am not changing the
structure
> of the rules either. Save that for x-rule time.


PS:

Your snipping of my earlier posting is completely forgiven - I would
much rather see a new draft of Warrior than have these concerns
endlessly debated by the Rulers.