Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/14/2004 06:52:21 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

close order can charge 120p as per the discussion of x-rule Chris
Bump and I had. >>
one thought i have on this -

The issue with CO foot movement isn't the charge and rolling up - it is that
CO foot cannot, unlike any other troop type in the game, charge a target
after marching 240p from it the previous bound. the above x-rule does not fix
this. it does permit the 'possibility' of CO foot 'catching' loose or open
foot - however, that does not make using CO foot for this much more of a good
idea than it is now.
*IF* let's say just for argument, I was considering this change to the
rules, it would not be the above rule I changed it to.

Just my $0.02
Jon




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

I do not think there will be any more Derekcons, sadly, so Ambrose
and I are contemplating our own Florida tournament. In keeping with
Derekcon it will be 1100 points, but we wanted to add a couple of new
features:

1100 points
Defender gets +1 on terrain rolls
Defender gets to place forces second
Defender gets only 850 points
Attacker gets 1100 points

Outscouting counts only for ambush and forcemarch placement.

close order can charge 120p as per the discussion of x-rule Chris
Bump and I had. +1 for the charge, roll to see if went long.

Any thoughts?

Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:19:54 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. >.

Yes, Boyd, I read and agree with everything you said in your post. What I
am saying is that 'our' version of the x-rule does both things (charge after
march *and* mutually charge loose order) and 'yours' does just the one thing.
From a design standpoint, I would only consider the former but certainly you
raise valid issues and we are looking forward to hearing how your use of it
went.

Jon





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

First, Size of the table ?

Up the points of the attacker to 1200 and the defender to 950 or
1000. Gives people practice runing a Mini army size force. Give the
defender a 480 paces rear zone. This will allow him to deploy in
depth and games are faster.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> I do not think there will be any more Derekcons, sadly, so Ambrose
> and I are contemplating our own Florida tournament. In keeping
with
> Derekcon it will be 1100 points, but we wanted to add a couple of
new
> features:
>
> 1100 points
> Defender gets +1 on terrain rolls
> Defender gets to place forces second
> Defender gets only 850 points
> Attacker gets 1100 points
>
> Outscouting counts only for ambush and forcemarch placement.
>
> close order can charge 120p as per the discussion of x-rule Chris
> Bump and I had. +1 for the charge, roll to see if went long.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

Wanax Andron wrote:
> I do not think there will be any more Derekcons, sadly, so Ambrose
> and I are contemplating our own Florida tournament. In keeping with
> Derekcon it will be 1100 points, but we wanted to add a couple of new
> features:
>
> 1100 points
> Defender gets +1 on terrain rolls
> Defender gets to place forces second
> Defender gets only 850 points
> Attacker gets 1100 points
>
> Outscouting counts only for ambush and forcemarch placement.
>
> close order can charge 120p as per the discussion of x-rule Chris
> Bump and I had. +1 for the charge, roll to see if went long.
>
> Any thoughts?

Sure. Hope I'm attacker.

[I think this kind of thing would be ideal for a 'pair' tournament,
where you play one game as each side, but I think that 250 points on
an 850 base is a lot too much of a differential to produce balanced
games in your present format. I'd go for maybe 1100-1000 if you like,
on these rules. I suspect that you'd do better giving the attacker
one fewer terrain *pick*, maybe, and mandating that defender gets
first placement.]

Sorry - negative on Monday mornings .

E

I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. Also SHC and
HCh would not be able to charge freely and hit them halted. The
biggest difference is that things like Early German foot would be
able to fight, potentially, Gaulic foot on an even basis with more
figs fighting for the Germans but the IrrgA aspect of the Gauls
countering the factor shift.

Currently one of the "gimics" of the game is just such a ploy. A
person takes a unit of let us say RgB LMI LTS/sh and charges a body
of close order from 120. Chances are the LMI will stick or push back
the closer order. Then in the next turn a unit of K or EHC or
something of that ilk is ramed into the close order to begin the
process of causing recoil disorders until failure. If we pretend
towards history, I don't find very many examples of this behavior.
Now, however, the close order, such as hoplites, are capable of
forcing the other player to use more historic tactics in dealing with
what was a historic strength of the hoplite.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/14/2004 06:52:21 Central Daylight Time,
> spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> close order can charge 120p as per the discussion of x-rule Chris
> Bump and I had. >>
> one thought i have on this -
>
> The issue with CO foot movement isn't the charge and rolling up -
it is that
> CO foot cannot, unlike any other troop type in the game, charge a
target
> after marching 240p from it the previous bound. the above x-rule
does not fix
> this. it does permit the 'possibility' of CO foot 'catching'
loose or open
> foot - however, that does not make using CO foot for this much
more of a good
> idea than it is now.
> *IF* let's say just for argument, I was considering this change to
the
> rules, it would not be the above rule I changed it to.
>
> Just my $0.02
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Got it, Jon, thanks. Appologies for being dense this morning.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:19:54 Central Daylight Time,
> spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
> foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. >.
>
> Yes, Boyd, I read and agree with everything you said in your
post. What I
> am saying is that 'our' version of the x-rule does both things
(charge after
> march *and* mutually charge loose order) and 'yours' does just the
one thing.
> From a design standpoint, I would only consider the former but
certainly you
> raise valid issues and we are looking forward to hearing how your
use of it
> went.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 14 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:19:54 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y...
> writes:
>>
>> I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
>> foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. >.
>
> Yes, Boyd, I read and agree with everything you said in your post. What I
> am saying is that 'our' version of the x-rule does both things (charge after
> march *and* mutually charge loose order) and 'yours' does just the one thing.
> From a design standpoint, I would only consider the former but certainly you
> raise valid issues and we are looking forward to hearing how your use of it
> went.

This is a "philosophical" difference about focus that comes up a lot in
discussions on this list. Boyd is thinking in terms of one-on-one matchups, and
in terms of what beats what in that context. Jon is thinking about overall
tactical capabilities of a unit.

It seems to me that Jon's focus is the correct starting point.

Although I shun close order foot for the most part -- for exactly the reason Jon
expresses, namely the inability to approach and charge from 240p in a single
bound -- to the extent that I use close order foot it tends to be MI LTS,Sh,
often irregular. This is a staple of the Medieval armies I play. They don't
beat very many troop types straight up, and they do have significant
vulnerabilities to some common shock troop types (elephants, "moogs", etc.).
That doesn't make them useless. It just means you have to put them to use
within the constraints of what they are capable. The fact that, say, barbarian
foot will beat them at contact, doesn't really bother me that much (nor does it
incline me to hide them from barbarian foot). From a higher level tactical
view, I tend to think about these questions when examining a troop type:
- What doe they rout (within 2 bounds of contact, i.e. charge+follow-up)?
- What do they beat?
- What can they catch?
- What can they avoid?
- What beats them?
- What routs them (within 2 bounds of contact)?

The key thing about MI LTS,Sh is that there's very little, including barbarian
foot, that is assured of routing them, even though there's a great deal that
beats them. Factor in that there's very little that they can (a) beat and (b)
catch, and you have a clearly defined role for these guys: line troops and
shock absorbers.

There's nothing wrong with that. Every army needs some. But their limitations
are significant enough that I'll only buy them as required troops. I won't go
out of my way to buy them on purpose.

And here's the key thing: making them sturdier in hand to hand combat, or
somewhat more likely to catch things, won't change that assessment. Because it
really doesn't change their overall tactical role.

Starting from Jon's point of view, you get a whole different perspective on the
matter. Any troop type that can, in one bound, march to 240p from a given point
on the enemy line and, in the next bound, approach to charge range has a whole
different tactical "life". Troops that have this movement capability can be
held in reserve behind the line and rapidly deployed against exactly what they
can beat. That combination dramatically changes the value of a troop type.

Think about it: knights are generally regarded as a dangerous shock troop,
despite the fact that they have a wide range of vulnerabilities: elephants,
pikes, longbowmen... there's a long list of troops that can stand up to, or
outright beat knights. However, knights have that ability to march and close to
combat over the course of two bounds, meaning they can be held in reserve away
from what they are vulnerable to, and deployed only against what they can
exploit. Knights have the added advantage of always moving in mounted
approaches, giving them even greater ability to respond to vulnerabilities
presented by the opponent.

Close order foot can't do _anything_ like this. That's why they are a liability
as anything other than a line troop type. You have to change that to change
their overall value, which is what Jon's x-rule approach would do.

More importantly -- and this is my main point -- Jon's thinking about this from
the right end of the problem. The question is seldom what beats what head to
head, but rather how does a given troop type fit into an overall tactical plan.
Combined arms tactics: it's the name of the game.


-Mark Stone


P.S. Boyd, back on the original topic: "Attacker" armies should be minimum of
1100 points, maximum of 1300 points; "defender" armies should be minimum of 800
points, maximum of 1000. Add to that the following: the defender starts each
battle as having already scored a number of points killed equal to the
difference between the defender's point total and the attacker's point total.
In other words, if the attacker plays a 1200 point army and the defender plays
a 900 point army, then the defender counts as having already "killed" 300
points for scoring purposes.

I understand the derivation that you and Jon are working towards, but
I'm still not completely convinced this approach will not unhinge
many armies in favor of many other armies. No one would, for example
ever play Irrg LMI again if they get the same capabilities from irreg
MI who count 4 figures per element. I think that by maintaining the
limited 80p approach with a possible 120p charge range you get the
best of both worlds. First you are still (mechanically) limiting
those units that rely upon coohesion, as maintaining the line is key
and therefore slower than those who rely upon shock of impact and
less about internal order. This I find is the only fundamental
assessment to my analogy of Germanic vs. Gaul (without actually
getting into the entire debate as to why most game systems have this
match exactly backwards )

Using your example Mark, should not the line troops be in the line
and not in reserves as the K are? I don't think we should be using
close order to manuver, as this smacks of napoleonic columns moreso
than ancient examples. Aside from the late republican roman and
Alexandrian infantry, there isn't much to indicate on field
manuvering was prevelant or successful. Case in point is Roman
failure to deploy completely before combat at Canae.

I'm not so much concerned about individual matchups, as you appoint,
but I'm more concerned about leveling of a heretofore unequal
struggle that often predicates inappropriate results. It isn't the
actual mechanics of ancient warfare, thus it doesn't make any
pretense historically. Once two bodies decided to have at it, they
moved forward and fought; where they fight is irrelevant, except that
in the mechanic one body is standing while the other is charging. In
an actual situation, aside from recieving mounted charges, I can't
find evidense that one side would ever just allow the enemy
to "charge" them at the halt. In a close quarter struggle of any kind
momentum is a powerful tool; a quick look at a rugby scrimage or even
a football line shows that a stationary man has great difficulting
absorbing the momentum of a chargin opponant *and* maintaining any
formation.

My concern, therefore, is that as an x-rule, I want to explore ways
to rebalance the field to generate a more historical appearance in
armies and outcome possibilities. This we all want obviously.

Here is an example of extrapolation from WRG7 to DBM. When Gaulic Wb
(F) move into contact with Roman Bd(O), the dice roll gives about a
1/3 chance that the Gauls will quickkill the Bd. This pretends to
mimic the impetuous "sweeping away" the barbarian's charge had in
effect against the steady line of Romans. There is not one instance
of such behavior on the part of the Gauls during the entire conquest
of Gaul by Caesar. I know, as I researched it completely for Karl-
Heintz's article in Slingshot. The Gauls did act like LMI in the
sense that they skirmished, rushed forward and receeded, and
generally harrased the Romans constantly from a distance in attempts
to create an exploitable disorder in their ranks; that is when they
charged in. Yet in no encounter did steady Roman infantry do
anything other than repel mad rushes with heavy loss to the Gauls.
DBM is an extrapolation of 7th results boiled to a single dice roll.
Warrior, in this instance does mimic the exact same mechanic, but
they do it with limitation on close order foot. Now in Warrior it
takes a bound or two and an up roll to "sweep" the legionaires, but
with the possible 120p charge range for CO they balance is returned
to a more historical tactical doctrine for both sides. Namely, the
Romans present a real and devistating threat, while the Gauls must
skirmish and attemp to create disorder before successfully charging
home.

Whew!
Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On June 14 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> > In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:19:54 Central Daylight Time,
> spocksleftball@y...
> > writes:
> >>
> >> I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
> >> foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. >.
> >
> > Yes, Boyd, I read and agree with everything you said in your
post. What I
> > am saying is that 'our' version of the x-rule does both things
(charge after
> > march *and* mutually charge loose order) and 'yours' does just
the one thing.
> > From a design standpoint, I would only consider the former but
certainly you
> > raise valid issues and we are looking forward to hearing how your
use of it
> > went.
>
> This is a "philosophical" difference about focus that comes up a
lot in
> discussions on this list. Boyd is thinking in terms of one-on-one
matchups, and
> in terms of what beats what in that context. Jon is thinking about
overall
> tactical capabilities of a unit.
>
> It seems to me that Jon's focus is the correct starting point.
>
> Although I shun close order foot for the most part -- for exactly
the reason Jon
> expresses, namely the inability to approach and charge from 240p in
a single
> bound -- to the extent that I use close order foot it tends to be
MI LTS,Sh,
> often irregular. This is a staple of the Medieval armies I play.
They don't
> beat very many troop types straight up, and they do have significant
> vulnerabilities to some common shock troop types
(elephants, "moogs", etc.).
> That doesn't make them useless. It just means you have to put them
to use
> within the constraints of what they are capable. The fact that,
say, barbarian
> foot will beat them at contact, doesn't really bother me that much
(nor does it
> incline me to hide them from barbarian foot). From a higher level
tactical
> view, I tend to think about these questions when examining a troop
type:
> - What doe they rout (within 2 bounds of contact, i.e.
charge+follow-up)?
> - What do they beat?
> - What can they catch?
> - What can they avoid?
> - What beats them?
> - What routs them (within 2 bounds of contact)?
>
> The key thing about MI LTS,Sh is that there's very little,
including barbarian
> foot, that is assured of routing them, even though there's a great
deal that
> beats them. Factor in that there's very little that they can (a)
beat and (b)
> catch, and you have a clearly defined role for these guys: line
troops and
> shock absorbers.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that. Every army needs some. But their
limitations
> are significant enough that I'll only buy them as required troops.
I won't go
> out of my way to buy them on purpose.
>
> And here's the key thing: making them sturdier in hand to hand
combat, or
> somewhat more likely to catch things, won't change that assessment.
Because it
> really doesn't change their overall tactical role.
>
> Starting from Jon's point of view, you get a whole different
perspective on the
> matter. Any troop type that can, in one bound, march to 240p from a
given point
> on the enemy line and, in the next bound, approach to charge range
has a whole
> different tactical "life". Troops that have this movement
capability can be
> held in reserve behind the line and rapidly deployed against
exactly what they
> can beat. That combination dramatically changes the value of a
troop type.
>
> Think about it: knights are generally regarded as a dangerous shock
troop,
> despite the fact that they have a wide range of vulnerabilities:
elephants,
> pikes, longbowmen... there's a long list of troops that can stand
up to, or
> outright beat knights. However, knights have that ability to march
and close to
> combat over the course of two bounds, meaning they can be held in
reserve away
> from what they are vulnerable to, and deployed only against what
they can
> exploit. Knights have the added advantage of always moving in
mounted
> approaches, giving them even greater ability to respond to
vulnerabilities
> presented by the opponent.
>
> Close order foot can't do _anything_ like this. That's why they are
a liability
> as anything other than a line troop type. You have to change that
to change
> their overall value, which is what Jon's x-rule approach would do.
>
> More importantly -- and this is my main point -- Jon's thinking
about this from
> the right end of the problem. The question is seldom what beats
what head to
> head, but rather how does a given troop type fit into an overall
tactical plan.
> Combined arms tactics: it's the name of the game.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> P.S. Boyd, back on the original topic: "Attacker" armies should be
minimum of
> 1100 points, maximum of 1300 points; "defender" armies should be
minimum of 800
> points, maximum of 1000. Add to that the following: the defender
starts each
> battle as having already scored a number of points killed equal to
the
> difference between the defender's point total and the attacker's
point total.
> In other words, if the attacker plays a 1200 point army and the
defender plays
> a 900 point army, then the defender counts as having
already "killed" 300
> points for scoring purposes.

[Chris Bump]

Too many ways to skin a cat I guess. The fact of the matter is that 240 paces
is an arbitrary distance. I agree with Boyd that if close order has the same
movement capabilities as loose then irregular loose will diminish in value.
Close avoid waivers when charged by mounted and can now hit with more figs and
because the one fig per element compensates for the one factor rating in
charging impetuously, the close order versions will put out a greater number of
casualties their loose order cousins, even more so if not impetuous. I fail to
understand what the hurry is. So what if close order cannot approach and charge
in the first bound after having marched. They are after all close order. The
problem has just as much to do with march phases. Close order march so late in
the sequence that it typically takes 3 bounds to get them where you want them if
you are trying to maneuver them as Mark's post would seem to purport.

Our game already suffers from the too close a feel to napoleonics (or later) as
opposed to ancients warfare. Too many troops in our game have unrealistic
capabilities and it is often explained away with a macro approach to looking at
things. There must also be a consideration for the micro and the tactical one
on one's that Mark writes about in his post.
The next logical question would be, why is LC able to move any faster than MC?
They are after all, many times, the same troops on the same horses organized a
little differently. For that matter the same arguments that have supported the
questionable concept that SHK could move at the same rate of speed and charge
the same distances as HC in a given time frame could be applied to ask why any
unarmored horse cav cannot move the same distance as LC.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Stone
To: warrior
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:23 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: tournament format


--- On June 14 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:19:54 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y...
> writes:
>>
>> I think where the rule change effects most Jon is in irregular co
>> foot would be able to charge loose order on even terms. >.
>
> Yes, Boyd, I read and agree with everything you said in your post. What I
> am saying is that 'our' version of the x-rule does both things (charge after
> march *and* mutually charge loose order) and 'yours' does just the one
thing.
> From a design standpoint, I would only consider the former but certainly you
> raise valid issues and we are looking forward to hearing how your use of it
> went.

This is a "philosophical" difference about focus that comes up a lot in
discussions on this list. Boyd is thinking in terms of one-on-one matchups,
and
in terms of what beats what in that context. Jon is thinking about overall
tactical capabilities of a unit.

It seems to me that Jon's focus is the correct starting point.

Although I shun close order foot for the most part -- for exactly the reason
Jon
expresses, namely the inability to approach and charge from 240p in a single
bound -- to the extent that I use close order foot it tends to be MI LTS,Sh,
often irregular. This is a staple of the Medieval armies I play. They don't
beat very many troop types straight up, and they do have significant
vulnerabilities to some common shock troop types (elephants, "moogs", etc.).
That doesn't make them useless. It just means you have to put them to use
within the constraints of what they are capable. The fact that, say, barbarian
foot will beat them at contact, doesn't really bother me that much (nor does
it
incline me to hide them from barbarian foot). From a higher level tactical
view, I tend to think about these questions when examining a troop type:
- What doe they rout (within 2 bounds of contact, i.e. charge+follow-up)?
- What do they beat?
- What can they catch?
- What can they avoid?
- What beats them?
- What routs them (within 2 bounds of contact)?

The key thing about MI LTS,Sh is that there's very little, including barbarian
foot, that is assured of routing them, even though there's a great deal that
beats them. Factor in that there's very little that they can (a) beat and (b)
catch, and you have a clearly defined role for these guys: line troops and
shock absorbers.

There's nothing wrong with that. Every army needs some. But their limitations
are significant enough that I'll only buy them as required troops. I won't go
out of my way to buy them on purpose.

And here's the key thing: making them sturdier in hand to hand combat, or
somewhat more likely to catch things, won't change that assessment. Because it
really doesn't change their overall tactical role.

Starting from Jon's point of view, you get a whole different perspective on
the
matter. Any troop type that can, in one bound, march to 240p from a given
point
on the enemy line and, in the next bound, approach to charge range has a whole
different tactical "life". Troops that have this movement capability can be
held in reserve behind the line and rapidly deployed against exactly what they
can beat. That combination dramatically changes the value of a troop type.

Think about it: knights are generally regarded as a dangerous shock troop,
despite the fact that they have a wide range of vulnerabilities: elephants,
pikes, longbowmen... there's a long list of troops that can stand up to, or
outright beat knights. However, knights have that ability to march and close
to
combat over the course of two bounds, meaning they can be held in reserve away
from what they are vulnerable to, and deployed only against what they can
exploit. Knights have the added advantage of always moving in mounted
approaches, giving them even greater ability to respond to vulnerabilities
presented by the opponent.

Close order foot can't do _anything_ like this. That's why they are a
liability
as anything other than a line troop type. You have to change that to change
their overall value, which is what Jon's x-rule approach would do.

More importantly -- and this is my main point -- Jon's thinking about this
from
the right end of the problem. The question is seldom what beats what head to
head, but rather how does a given troop type fit into an overall tactical
plan.
Combined arms tactics: it's the name of the game.


-Mark Stone


P.S. Boyd, back on the original topic: "Attacker" armies should be minimum of
1100 points, maximum of 1300 points; "defender" armies should be minimum of
800
points, maximum of 1000. Add to that the following: the defender starts each
battle as having already scored a number of points killed equal to the
difference between the defender's point total and the attacker's point total.
In other words, if the attacker plays a 1200 point army and the defender plays
a 900 point army, then the defender counts as having already "killed" 300
points for scoring purposes.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

I believe the strength of Warrior rules is that it does not keep changeing.
Its a game and great fun. Once logic and historical accuracy start to change
the rules the the strength of warrior will be gone. One has to accept that
in competion games historical accuracy is not the most important thing.
Playability by people who have never met before but play the same rules is
ALL.

Where the rules can be made more historically accurate is in campaign games
run by individual clubs.

Kingo