Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
>list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
>charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
>simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
>interactions in the entire game system to correct.
>
>But it appears (to me admittedly) that not all but most of this
>hobby is in fact concerned with open tournament play as opposed to
>historical simulation and to that majority of players such a change
>to their carefully developed army capabilities would be overly
>disruptive.

Hear Hear. I 'd like to see these two items included as X-rules.
Unfortunately, I think that the only people who have enough
experience with the rules engine to write them are tournament players
who just don't have any interest in doing so.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Chris Bump]

I have always thought that any and all loose order troops being able to launch
an attack out of skirmish was extremely gamey. I remember that it came about as
a rule change in the earlier days of 7th out of the need to simulate Hun or
Parthian type tactics and in those days a rule was applied across the board
rather than to specific armies. It seems to me that it would be quite
logistically difficult to move from the complete disorganization of a skirmish
formation to one of formed ranks and then conduct a charge within the time
constraints of what already formed troops are conducting their charge. Should
probably require that anyone, other than specific armies, that wants to charge
out of skirmish count as disordered when doing so. Seems only fair since
skirmishers that have their charge canceled become immediately disordered.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: what skirmish is not- Sacred Cows


>deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
>list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
>charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
>simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
>interactions in the entire game system to correct.
>
>But it appears (to me admittedly) that not all but most of this
>hobby is in fact concerned with open tournament play as opposed to
>historical simulation and to that majority of players such a change
>to their carefully developed army capabilities would be overly
>disruptive.

Hear Hear. I 'd like to see these two items included as X-rules.
Unfortunately, I think that the only people who have enough
experience with the rules engine to write them are tournament players
who just don't have any interest in doing so.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes


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 know very little about how skirmishing applies to the ancient world. As an
Historical re-enactor though, let me say that Skirmish formations are not
disorganized. Since it involves shooting, it needs a fair amount of
discipline. In addition, a trained formation can get in and out of skirmish
quite rapidly.

I hope I'm not boring anybody, but in my re-enacting experience, Skirmishing
is a favoured tactic. My Regiment is the King's Royal Regiment of New York,
which recreates a Loyalist Regiment from the War of Independence. I am in
the Light Company, which naturally employs quite a bit of skirmishing. We
will often extend to six pace intervals.
Skirmishing allows us to safely engage an enemy formation, and fix it in a
place of our choosing. Another unit is then able to outmanoeuvre the target
enemy. We are tough to deal with when we are in skirmish; They can't just
leave, because within a heartbeat we can close formation and be at their
heels. If they manoeuvre to deal with another one of our companies, we can
close formation and get them in the flanks, or simply leave and pester
somebody else. Our work is done, since they have exhausted their best
shooting and won't be equal to a line company anymore.
If the enemy decides to charge, we can evade. Open order is an easy
formation to maintain at a fast pace. We generally fight while retiring, so
the enemy just gets to lick a few more wounds.
Often, we perceive that the enemy we are skirmishing is in a weak position,
and in these cases we are not above closing formation and charging. You get
to know when this will work and when it wont. Quite frequently, our decision
to charge coincides with a push from a friendly company. In that case we
close formation and join in. Of course, that has to occur in a timely manner
because the other company may not want to wait.
Skirmishing allows a formation to react to changing situations faster than
any other, it is both offensive and defensive. Cavalry is the only thing
that makes you panic. We were overrun by Cavalry once; We were skirmishing
away and suddenly a Cavalry troop seemed to come from nowhere. There was no
time to adopt a square, we failed our waver check (tee hee) and they rode us
down unmercifully.

Anyway, that is what skirmishers can do in my own experience. Again, I
suspect allot of the principles are universal. The only difference I can see
is the degree of drill. Drill is obviously quite sophisticated by the 18th
century, but I would expect that a regular body of troops in any period will
be reasonably proficient in what ever set of manoeuvres it trains to.


Allan Lougheed

----- Original Message -----
From: "CHRIS BUMP" <cncbump@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: what skirmish is not- Sacred Cows


> I have always thought that any and all loose order troops being able to
launch an attack out of skirmish was extremely gamey. I remember that it
came about as a rule change in the earlier days of 7th out of the need to
simulate Hun or Parthian type tactics and in those days a rule was applied
across the board rather than to specific armies. It seems to me that it
would be quite logistically difficult to move from the complete
disorganization of a skirmish formation to one of formed ranks and then
conduct
> a charge within the time constraints of what already formed troops are
conducting their charge. Should probably require that anyone, other than
specific armies, that wants to charge out of skirmish count as disordered
when doing so. Seems only fair since skirmishers that have their charge
canceled become immediately disordered.
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:08 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: what skirmish is not- Sacred Cows
>
>
> >deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
> >list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
> >charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
> >simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
> >interactions in the entire game system to correct.
> >
> >But it appears (to me admittedly) that not all but most of this
> >hobby is in fact concerned with open tournament play as opposed to
> >historical simulation and to that majority of players such a change
> >to their carefully developed army capabilities would be overly
> >disruptive.
>
> Hear Hear. I 'd like to see these two items included as X-rules.
> Unfortunately, I think that the only people who have enough
> experience with the rules engine to write them are tournament players
> who just don't have any interest in doing so.
> --
>
> Doug
> The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

First, Mark Stone's original post concerning "what skirmish is not",
is probably the single best post I have ever read on this board.

Second, I agree with Chris Bump completely, in that the ability to
skirmish as not all that bad, but the ability to charge out of
skirmish at the drop of a hat without penalty, is gamey. In my
opinion it was the worst change ever made to TOG.

This whole discussion points out the wisdom of some policies of FHE,
in particular the X-Rule notion. Had this been in place back in the
TOG days, certain cavalry armies could have been given this option,
without giving it to ill-trained loose order masses, who get far more
benefit from the rule that the troops for which it was intended.

Thanks ... Greg

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 29 May 2004, Greg Regets wrote:
> First, Mark Stone's original post concerning "what skirmish is not",
> is probably the single best post I have ever read on this board.

Not sure I'd say that; but I do think it's been clear recently that he
provides the highest quality postings here. Now, if we all buy him a beer
each at his next tourney... that should reduce his threat to win it .

Maybe we should just vote him to write the new rulebook ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: what skirmish is not- Sacred Cows


> First, Mark Stone's original post concerning "what skirmish is not",
> is probably the single best post I have ever read on this board.
>
> Second, I agree with Chris Bump completely, in that the ability to
> skirmish as not all that bad, but the ability to charge out of
> skirmish at the drop of a hat without penalty, is gamey. In my
> opinion it was the worst change ever made to TOG.
>
> This whole discussion points out the wisdom of some policies of FHE,
> in particular the X-Rule notion. Had this been in place back in the
> TOG days, certain cavalry armies could have been given this option,
> without giving it to ill-trained loose order masses, who get far more
> benefit from the rule that the troops for which it was intended.
>
> Thanks ... Greg
>
>
>