Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Gosh, I find complaints about the point costs dull.

Anyway...

I know this is going to hurt, but LC units threading through very
small gaps in a line is a REAL HISTORICAL PROBLEM. People playing games
in which they act as ancient's generals should have to deal with it by
keeping their units shoulder to shoulder, not by adapting formations
that look like late 18th C. "Ordre Mixte."
The bnriefest persal of anyone's tactics against the Ottomans
(Montecucolli, for instance) will show you that Western commanders knew
they needed to keep EVERY unit in the front line dressed to every other,
with no seperations at all, lest the Turk LC be through their line and
killing guys.
Some time baqck I wrote a long post with some research and some
quotes about LC tactics vs infantry and cavalry (real tactics, not
Warrior ones) in which I suggested that the interaction was complex and
usually involved sitting just clear of the enemy and firing arrows until
you (the LC) perceived a gap to be formed, and then sending a couple of
"heroes" into that gap to kill as many enemy as possible--and once that
gap widened sufficiently, the whole "tribe" pours in. There are
descriptions of this form of warfare from at least the 9th C. AD. I
suspect this form of warfare started with the Cimerians and marched
right along through past the Mongols.
The last thing you'd do faceing these guys is voluntarily leave a
gap in your line!

As a reenactor, I have had the experience of posting my infantry
company with a 20 pace (that's 60 feet) gap between us (40 men) and the
next unit--and having 2 dozen dragoons ride through that gap BETWEEN
VOLLEYS (about 8 seconds). Its that fast. This is a case where I
honestly think that if you haven't seen it done, it is hard to imagine.

Some artificial constraints are required in any rules set--but
don't give those blocks of infantry still more advantage by allowing
them to artificially extend their lines. If (and I admit that I had
never noticed this before the point was raised by others) you can thread
a line during approaches--well, your opponent made a mistake, and now
he's going to pay.

I admit that this would change the style of play--and shorten some
player's lines, making their flanks more vulnerable. Those, however,
are historical problems of infantry facing cavalry.

And surely this is a more interesting topic to discuss, maybe with
some references to historical documents, maybe some reenacting war
stories, etc--then the point value of special rules.

Yawn.

Christian

>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Ok, I'll bite.

First, some data: There is not 8 seconds between bow shots. 20 paces is 50
feet.

The Warrior 'element' is an abstraction. On the ground, a Warrior 'unit' (also
an abstraction) controls more ground than the bases the figures are mounted on.
The 40p rule simulates this control.
There is not substantive evidence of multiple hundred man bodies of LC slipping
into ordered lines of steady foot. What you describe below is much more like
what happens at the unit level when LC charges disordered foot.
If we changed Warrior such that the actual base exactly matched the ground we
wanted the unit to control - besides having a brand new game to make - then we
would indeed have to have rules for how infantry lines would move (as well as
what was a unit....) given that every base of every unit would have to touch
every base of every other unit to prevent LC infiltration at an unrealistic
level.
The vernacular: 'ain't happening, 'cuz it ain't broke.'

What is broke is that imperfect language in one rule is being claimed to have
properties in another rule it should not have and I will fix it.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:57:00 -0500
Subject: [WarriorRules] Threading the gaps


Gosh, I find complaints about the point costs dull.

Anyway...

I know this is going to hurt, but LC units threading through very
small gaps in a line is a REAL HISTORICAL PROBLEM. People playing games
in which they act as ancient's generals should have to deal with it by
keeping their units shoulder to shoulder, not by adapting formations
that look like late 18th C. "Ordre Mixte."
The bnriefest persal of anyone's tactics against the Ottomans
(Montecucolli, for instance) will show you that Western commanders knew
they needed to keep EVERY unit in the front line dressed to every other,
with no seperations at all, lest the Turk LC be through their line and
killing guys.
Some time baqck I wrote a long post with some research and some
quotes about LC tactics vs infantry and cavalry (real tactics, not
Warrior ones) in which I suggested that the interaction was complex and
usually involved sitting just clear of the enemy and firing arrows until
you (the LC) perceived a gap to be formed, and then sending a couple of
"heroes" into that gap to kill as many enemy as possible--and once that
gap widened sufficiently, the whole "tribe" pours in. There are
descriptions of this form of warfare from at least the 9th C. AD. I
suspect this form of warfare started with the Cimerians and marched
right along through past the Mongols.
The last thing you'd do faceing these guys is voluntarily leave a
gap in your line!

As a reenactor, I have had the experience of posting my infantry
company with a 20 pace (that's 60 feet) gap between us (40 men) and the
next unit--and having 2 dozen dragoons ride through that gap BETWEEN
VOLLEYS (about 8 seconds). Its that fast. This is a case where I
honestly think that if you haven't seen it done, it is hard to imagine.

Some artificial constraints are required in any rules set--but
don't give those blocks of infantry still more advantage by allowing
them to artificially extend their lines. If (and I admit that I had
never noticed this before the point was raised by others) you can thread
a line during approaches--well, your opponent made a mistake, and now
he's going to pay.

I admit that this would change the style of play--and shorten some
player's lines, making their flanks more vulnerable. Those, however,
are historical problems of infantry facing cavalry.

And surely this is a more interesting topic to discuss, maybe with
some references to historical documents, maybe some reenacting war
stories, etc--then the point value of special rules.

Yawn.

Christian

>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jon

I'm going to have to disagree with what you're saying here. I'll
start with your points in detail and go from there.

JonCleaves wrote:
> First, some data: There is not 8 seconds between bow shots. 20
paces is 50 feet.

Well, since most sources argue longbows fired 8-10 shots a minute
there are 6-8 seconds between bowshots.

Horses run at approximately 40 miles per hour, or approximately 60
feet a second.

So, you get one shot at range, and then the cav is through the gap.

> The Warrior 'element' is an abstraction. On the ground, a
Warrior 'unit' (also an abstraction) controls more ground than the
bases the figures are mounted on. The 40p rule simulates this
control.

I'd have to say that you're taking your abstraction way, way too far
here John. A heavy infantry base is 60 paces wide by 20 paces
deep. Assuming 85 (the maximum) men on a base, you have a man every
45 square feet, and there's no close order unit that every marched.
Assuming they're shoulder to shoulder, assuming three feet of
frontage per man (a reasonable number given the numerous
descriptions of fighting shoulder to shoulder in primary sources)
you get two ranks of men. Two ranks of men can control terrtory
about as far out as their hand to hand weapons reach or a maximum of
16 feet (assuming pikes), so in reality your zone of control is the
size of the base.

Adding an extra 40 pace exclusion zone beyond that is, frankly,
unrealistic and unbelievable.

> There is not substantive evidence of multiple hundred man bodies
of LC slipping into ordered lines of steady foot. What you describe
below is much more like what happens at the unit level when LC
charges disordered foot.

We're talking about gaping holes 120 paces wide. You could drive a
convoy of Mac Trucks in line abreast through a hole that big. A
horseman from 80 paces out could be in that gap in 2 seconds.

A two element light cav unit has less than a hundred men, and more
than enough time and space to ride through a gap.

> If we changed Warrior such that the actual base exactly matched
the ground we wanted the unit to control - besides having a brand
new game to make - then we would indeed have to have rules for how
infantry lines would move (as well as what was a unit....) given
that every base of every unit would have to touch every base of
every other unit to prevent LC infiltration at an unrealistic level.
> The vernacular: 'ain't happening, 'cuz it ain't broke.'
>
> What is broke is that imperfect language in one rule is being
claimed to have properties in another rule it should not have and I
will fix it.

But it is broken historically speaking John. Armies on the tabletop
don't even look even vaguely historical with mucking great gaps in
their line. Almost every description of battle from the middle ages
I've read talks about unbroken lines, solid masses, and other
similarly unambiguous terms to describe the frontage of an army.

So I don't see how allowing units to move through giant gaps in the
enemy line represents an unrealistic level of light cavalry
infiltration. First off, it will only work for small units as big
ones would be strung out so far that they would simply be flanked
charged. So all it will encourage players to do is keep the gaps
between their units more realistically small.

Have fun
Cole

[Ewan McNay]

Nicholas Cioran wrote:
{good stuff, ending in:}
> So I don't see how allowing units to move through giant gaps in the
> enemy line represents an unrealistic level of light cavalry
> infiltration. First off, it will only work for small units as big
> ones would be strung out so far that they would simply be flanked
> charged. So all it will encourage players to do is keep the gaps
> between their units more realistically small.

Yeah, I agree completely. As I've noted, in future when I think there's
the faintest chance that Jon will react to a clear and unambiguous reading
of a rule that works well both game-wise and reality-wise as is by saying
"well, hell, I'm changing *that*" - then I plan to keep quiet!

[joncleaves]

<<Well, since most sources argue longbows fired 8-10 shots a minute
there are 6-8 seconds between bowshots.>>

I said bow.


<<I'd have to say that you're taking your abstraction way, way too far
here John. A heavy infantry base is 60 paces wide by 20 paces
deep. Assuming 85 (the maximum) men on a base,>>

A max of 85 men per figure, you mean. 340 per element. This makes your math
incorrect, I am afraid.
But that doesn't matter either as the element represents the center of mass and
not an exact linear prescription. If we did it 'your way' there would be no
space betwene units and we'd have to have all units touching each other with no
space between and rules for how you moved that mass. But then, that would not
be Warrior.

<<Adding an extra 40 pace exclusion zone beyond that is, frankly,
unrealistic and unbelievable.>>

It would be if we were talking 85 men in a space 60p by 20p. But we are not.

<<We're talking about gaping holes 120 paces wide. You could drive a
convoy of Mac Trucks in line abreast through a hole that big.>>

I am talking a space 60p wide. Mac trucks are not covered by our lists, in any
case.

<< A horseman from 80 paces out could be in that gap in 2 seconds.>>

I think maybe less. But in any case, we're talking hundreds of men through a
smaller space in less time. Warrior isn't a skirmish game. These are armies
not squads.

<<A two element light cav unit has less than a hundred men,>>

It is 200 men, actually. 50 per fig.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

<< then I plan to keep quiet!>>

Promises, promises.

Actually, I am very glad you spoke up. Besides wanting to note that even you
admit not thinking it should be right and not doing it because - why? - it
couldn't have been conscience...lol you caught a section of poor language in
the rules and in time to have it corrected in the revised book thus saving
future errata. I appreciate it.

Not speaking up because you think I intended something different and want to
keep using it - well, frankly, that's awful. I would ask others not to follow
such an example.

Jon




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> << then I plan to keep quiet!>>
>
> Promises, promises.
>
> Actually, I am very glad you spoke up. Besides wanting to note that
> even you admit not thinking it should be right and not doing it because
> - why? - it couldn't have been conscience...lol you caught a section
> of poor language in the rules and in time to have it corrected in the
> revised book thus saving future errata. I appreciate it.
>
> Not speaking up because you think I intended something different and
> want to keep using it - well, frankly, that's awful. I would ask
> others not to follow such an example.

Jon, as should by now be obvious, it never occured to me that an explicit
rule meant something quite different in your head. I certainly do not
guess what your intent is in such cases!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I said bow.

I think you're picking at nits here John. And not all infantry
blocks are bow armed...

And while higher rates of fire are possible, they still run up
against ammunition and fatigue problems.

> A max of 85 men per figure, you mean. 340 per element. This
makes your math incorrect, I am afraid.

> But that doesn't matter either as the element represents the
center of mass and not an exact linear prescription.

Sorry, I misunderstood the numbers, but even still at the not
unreasonable 9 square feet per man at close order you fit 350 men
into half of a close order infantry base.

Given them the zone of control of their weapons an extra 100 feet of
impenetrable space just doesn't make sense, thats 1 man per 250
square feet!

Besides, primary sources tell us units approach much closer to their
enemies than 100 feet. Just for instance fourteenth century Mamluk
cavalry manuals describe practicing shooting from as close a range
of "seven steps", while Monstrelet describes the English at
Agincourt moving freely just beyond the reach of the French
weapons. And those are just a couple of examples.

>If we did it 'your way' there would be no space betwene units and
we'd have to have all units touching each other with no space
between and rules for how you moved that mass. But then, that would
not be Warrior.

"My way" would simply reduce the space to 59 paces between units.
Plenty of room for playability, while making the board look more
historical.

Have fun!
Cole

[joncleaves]

<<Given them the zone of control of their weapons an extra 100 feet of
impenetrable space just doesn't make sense, thats 1 man per 250
square feet!>>


Ok, we are talking past each other.

An element of MI NOMINALLY represents four ranks of 200 men on the ground at 50
men per rank. At 60p frontage (150 feet) each man gets a 3 foot box to stand
in. That is actually VERY small and represents those few times the men
literally stand behind their brother's shields. Most of the time it is 4-5 feet
square per man.
As a figure can represent up to 85 men and we are also not talking about loose
or open order yet, you can easily see that the actual element base itself does
not - in Warrior - represent a force field containing all the men hermetically
sealed therein. In reality, the amount of ground covered by an element varies
greatly - and could EASILY mean men physically standing well outside of where
the nominal element edge is located on the tabletop. Warrior handles this by
putting a 40p 'zone' around a body along with the one element gap rule so that
we can skip writing several more pages of rules just to get the kind of line we
want represented or to take into account gaps between different orders of troops
or units at differing troop strengths.

We are not giving these men 100-foot long weapons.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

<<Jon, as should by now be obvious, it never occured to me that an explicit
rule meant something quite different in your head. I certainly do not
guess what your intent is in such cases!>>

I am not arguing that a literal read of the rule would seem to permit such. The
requirement placed upon me to continue to admit that the original book is full
of poorly written sections grows quite tiresome. Obviously given the differing
views on the rule at Tactical Retreat shows that it was open to interpretation
and hardly an 'explicit rule'. Work with me on this.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings Cole,
Some counter arguments.

> JonCleaves wrote:
> > First, some data: There is not 8 seconds between bow shots. 20
> paces is 50 feet.
>
> Well, since most sources argue longbows fired 8-10 shots a minute
> there are 6-8 seconds between bowshots.

> Horses run at approximately 40 miles per hour, or approximately 60
> feet a second.
>
> So, you get one shot at range, and then the cav is through the gap.

Your numbers are a bit off here Cole . Bows can be fired every 2-3 seconds at a
maximum pace, which they certainly would be here. A modern horse might be able
to cover your gap distance in 8 seconds, but that is with a very light load.
A smaller horse with a higher load probably goes 25 MPH so your shot window is
longer.
>
>
> I'd have to say that you're taking your abstraction way, way too far
> here John. A heavy infantry base is 60 paces wide by 20 paces
> deep. Assuming 85 (the maximum) men on a base, you have a man every
> 45 square feet, and there's no close order unit that every marched.
> Assuming they're shoulder to shoulder, assuming three feet of
> frontage per man (a reasonable number given the numerous
> descriptions of fighting shoulder to shoulder in primary sources)
> you get two ranks of men. Two ranks of men can control terrtory
> about as far out as their hand to hand weapons reach or a maximum of
> 16 feet (assuming pikes), so in reality your zone of control is the
> size of the base.

Here too the numbers seem off. Each base is about 150' wide as you say, but
they number of men is closer to 240 men. With each each man occupying 20"
across we have the men taking up almost 100' so now we have about a foot gap
between men. Each figure I'm using here is 60 men, so that is how many I'm
putting in the first rank. The depth is trickier but less important here. Now
we have 240 LC racing thru a 150' whole in the line. that is a bit harder to
justify.

Terry Dix

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 19:32:25 Central Standard Time,
ncioran@... writes:

I'm failing my suspension of disbelief check on your answer to this
one John, but I'm sick, so I'll wait till tomorrow before going
another round :)



[
Was this meant for me? I don't know what you are referring to, but it might
be meant for someone else.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm failing my suspension of disbelief check on your answer to this
one John, but I'm sick, so I'll wait till tomorrow before going
another round :)

Have fun!
Cole