Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< As I would hope that we are all more interested in something at least
approaching an historical simulation and not checkers where all are
equal, I still contend this issue needs to be addressed. >>

I reread your mail three times and only found a WRG history class (which I am
surprised someone thinks I need). What is the issue you refer to in your
last sentence above? Is it that you don't like the 1.5 L rule? Ok, fine,
but it is not up for debate. Is it Byzantine cav? I have already said we
will be taking a hard look at that and want historically researched input.
Is it who should get a wedge list rule? See two sentences back.

What I do not need is a WRG history lesson. I read it out of sheer
politeness, but I only do that once per person.
Jon

[joncleaves]

<< This is my point. Can this problem of B vs C be covered just by army
lists? >>

I snipped the problem. It isn't morale, it is a troop that outperformed
their basic definition in Warrior.
And what I have been saying all along is that in those cases where history
dictates some improvement over the finite (yet large enough already) set of
troop types in the basic rules, a list rule is exactly what we will do.

We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives us. If we
could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into persian
infantry and win.

Jon

[Phil Gardocki]

     If memory serves, it was not infantry the companions, better known  as 5 Reg 'A' * HC,L, + CinC, charged over the river, up an embankment into.  It was something worse, a unit, of at least 6, (probably 9-1 Irreg. 'B', (possibly 'C') EHC, JLS, SH, and did not win on the charge, but only after a fight of at least 2 bounds.

      But, the last time I heard this story from an actual history source was ten years ago, so I could be wrong.

Phil



We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives us.  If we could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into Persian infantry and win.

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

The issue of the mechanics of the rule system is what I am concerned
about also. As Warrior is 90%+ WRG and Warrior is a DIRECT descendent of
7th edition, the history as to how 7th edition evolved to where it was
and the logic that went into all these previous editions of WRG is
required to understand why it was as it was. This goes to the heart of
the current discussion on how different troops are interrelated. No
meaningful discussion on Warrior can be accomplished without recognizing
what Warrior is built on.

For example, the very issue of morale class and what it represents
mechanically has totally changed over the years but these same morale
classifications are still in use in warrior without change.


On morale, lets go back to just 5th and 6th edition. In 5th edition
(1976 ) impetuous was not used. Morale was used mainly for reaction and
following orders ( the infamous " Halt for two periods " or " Two
periods Unauthorized or uncontrolled advance ). Morale was listed as Irr
A, Reg A, B, C, Reg D, and Irr D. A unit in "uncontrolled advance"
did get a +1 in combat but the reaction test required the unit to see
many good thing and few bad things on the battlefield, with Irr A and Irr
D being the most volatile to a good or bad reaction and no difference
between irregular and regular B and C. Reg could generally change
formation faster and D's were limited in movement options. Irr bodies
only fought in one rank and close and lose reg fought in one and one
half ranks.

In 6th edition, and the Army Lists (1981-82), impetuous and wedge was
brought in to highlight the advantages of some historical troop types
such as Normans and Feudal French. The morale tables were redesigned and
Irr B became more inclined to go impetuous and get the +2 in combat.
Feudal French were given the Irr B morale and the English the Reg B to
highlight the French superiority over the English as now Irr B troops go
impetuous easier. I played Normans during this time and the general
tactics were to point the Normans like a gun and fire them. You started
with your Irr A's on the right ( only need low numbers to get the
impetuous bonus with Irr A's ) and by the time you were rolling for the
B's you had pluses for each additional unit charging. The only armies
that could count on being impetuous were Irr A and Irr B, and with Irr B
you had to set it up right.

7th edition turned the army lists and the morale rationale on its ear by
allowing ANY Irr troops to go impetuous almost at will. My complaints
with the system start here and carry through with Warrior as Warrior uses
the same morale frame work of 7th. The differences between the hand to
hand capability of Irr B and Irr C cav have became almost meaningless.
Feudal French knights (1072-1330), known through out Europe as the best
and the reason the English did not want to face them mounted, are not, in
any meaningful way, better than "Rich burghers Irr C, EHK, L, Sh" of the
Low Countries (1297-1489).

The Feudal French of the period would ride these burghers into the ground
and not look back in a face to face charge but not in the current rule
set. This is about as basic an example as I can come up with at the
moment and I do not see a fix in just looking at the army lists unless
rank and a half is defined by the army list and not the general rule set.


As I would hope that we are all more interested in something at least
approaching an historical simulation and not checkers where all are
equal, I still contend this issue needs to be addressed.


Ed Forbes

[Ed Forbes]

This is my point. Can this problem of B vs C be covered just by army
lists?

' Feudal French knights (1072-1330), known through out Europe as the
best and the reason the English did not want to face them mounted, are
not, in any meaningful way, better than "Rich burghers Irr C, EHK, L, Sh"
of the Low Countries (1297-1489).

The Feudal French of the period would ride these burghers into the ground
and not look back in a face to face charge but not in the current rule
set. This is about as basic an example as I can come up with at the
moment and I do not see a fix in just looking at the army lists unless
rank and a half is defined by the army list and not the general rule set.
"



On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:52:09 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
>
>
>
> I reread your mail three times and only found a WRG history class
> (which I am
> surprised someone thinks I need). What is the issue you refer to in
> your
> last sentence above?
>

[Ed Forbes]

The wittings of the times likened this cav assault to an inf assault, all
moving shoulder to shoulder and advancing and pushing to come to close
contact. This is where the Persian cav tended to want to throw missiles
from a distance. The idea that someone wanted to get close and personal
to them was a shock.

Again, this shows the difference between troops without missile weapons
and troops with missile weapons. It is seen all through history where
troops armed with missile weapons tend not to want to push to contact.
They will shoot instead of advancing. This is seen in the musket period
where orders were regularly given to attack with unloaded muskets. The
command did not want the assault to falter as the troops stopped to shot.
Defenders will also tend to fall back in order to continue shooting.
This is why sergeants in the musket period were issued halberds, to hold
horizontally and push the line forward or to keep the line from falling
back.

This tendency for missile troops to fall back is most likely what
happened with the Persian cav. They did not try for close combat, but
continued with the shooting style combat they trained with and were used
to. As a result , the Companions did not actually face a boot to boot
and sword to sword defence of the river bank and gained the other side of
the river. Close order inf would have probably stopped the Companions
cold as the inf would have defended the bank. The fact that Alexander
chose to charge the Persian cav beyond the river and not the Persian inf
should say something about the actual relative defensive strengths of the
Persian cav and inf in close combat.

Ed F



On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:54:30 EST PHGamer@... writes:
> If memory serves, it was not infantry the companions, better
> known as
> 5 Reg 'A' * HC,L, + CinC, charged over the river, up an embankment
> into. It
> was something worse, a unit, of at least 6, (probably 9-1 Irreg.
> 'B',
> (possibly 'C') EHC, JLS, SH, and did not win on the charge, but only
> after a
> fight of at least 2 bounds.
>
> But, the last time I heard this story from an actual history
> source
> was ten years ago, so I could be wrong.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> > We cannot, however, solve every problem like this history gives
> us. If we
> > could, I'd know why HC, L could charge across a river up hill into
> Persian
> > infantry and win.
> >
>
>