Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Kaeser]

[scott holder]

Please do not take this discussion on a wide detour regarding the point system.

That being said, FHE has always said that if somebody dropped a finished point system on our door step, we'd look long and hard at it.

For other comments on the point system, search this forum.

Now, back to Dark Age comments. This is really great stuff and we appreciate all the input.

scott

[AntiokosIII]

Tod- Look, I know you were kidding, but.....Braveheart? Ewwwwww.

The biggest problem with warbands is that historically they really were not very good. They almost always lost when faced with trained, disciplined troops. The exceptions are famous because they are SO exceptional. OTOH, I have no problem at all allowing most warband armies a downgrade to Irr D, which is probably a fair representation of their real morale value. Warbands armies should basically be a rank oc C class with one stand of A's and the rest D's. Of course, there are exceptions, but overall the Romans were right to regard most warbands as disorganised rabble.

Look, I understand that we want to make these armies competitive, but surely that would mean basing all warband armies on the exceptions, which is not good history.

I continue to think that Frank's shieldwall is the best, altho I still like the idea of some sort of morale test not to follow up or pursue with a loss of shieldwall and disorder if failed. We could get a real Hastings out of this, with the Anglo Danes looking absolutely invincibkle so long as they hold their ground on the hill, but losing when they get carried away and pursue what they believe to be a rout.

[Mark Stone]

[scott holder]

[Ewan McNay]

Mark's point on Vikings (for example) needing every bit of the frontage that they have right now, without trying to go into deep formations, is very true. I'm on record as claiming that Vikings might be viable (kinda, sorta) but the frontage issue is a huge one, especially with the axeman minimum.

Shieldwall preventing disorder from combat I *really* like. Probably an exception for being broken through.

In-period, a possibility to consider is offering a bonus to 2HCW-armed foot when fighting JLS (or LTS?) foot opponents. This would get more of the axemen of lore into play, possibly, certainly fronting units.

I take the point that IrrC LMI JLS, Sh are really just not that dangerous to professional armies other than by weight of numbers.

Neat discussion.

[scott holder]

Shieldwall and disorder.

This is *very* tricky. I have one way of approaching Shieldwall but this would be pretty much the exact opposite. Not that I'm wed to one approach over another but it's all in the numbers.

One historical note: Shieldwall was described as being a *packed* formation. So much so that the people writing about it during the time ended up using "antiquated" names for it, like testudo and phalanx.

The latter is interesting since it suggests *one* approach to treating Shieldwall in post-combat situations. By that I mean you treat it like a phalanx in that it disorders first, keeps the formation (and whatever benefits the formation provides) but does not recoil. On the second bound of melee, if it loses, it recoils, just like a phalanx.

Again, that's *one* approach and keep in mind that we like to ground anything new list rule wise in as much of the existing mechanics as we can.

If you haven't guessed yet, I've been doing a lot of number crunching using one particular model.

If you have some specific "non-disorder" approaches to Shieldwall, please share so we can run more numbers.

scott

[Todd Kaeser]

[Martin Williams]

I've been thinking about shooting from and at a shield wall.

Presumably it would be quite hard for the front rank of a shield wall to shoot (im thinking of the numerous viking double armed archers). Although presumably you could from a second rank. Should these archers be allowed in mixed units in the Viking List? At the moment I dont believe they can be, which seems odd.

Would a shield wall help protect from shooting (something like a testudo)? Perhaps a -1 for any shooters other than artillery/HG.

On the combat front, a shield wall that disorders as soon as Beaten (like pike) Is much less resilient than one that simply recoils (especially if armed with 2hcw). Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on how strong you want the formation to be. As I understand the descriptions of these battles there was often a bit of backwards and forwards before one of the formations broke up.

All this talk of shield wall is making me itch to rebase my Vikings as close order and bring them out of retirment!

Martin

[Siward]

[scott holder]

[Adrian Williams]

Any rules benefitting these troops should be on a case by case list by list basis - for instance my proposal of no waver test for 2HCW fronted troops when charged by mounted even if loose order should not apply to everything - not to Sarmatian Axemen for instance, but perhaps to Loose order Viking Huscarls, and some other troops who might warrant the benefit.

With flank marching - perhaps this is an option. Viking troops or troops under the command of a viking general can always flank march from a major water feature (not sure whether is should be normal basis or preferential mongol basis) whether they have bought boats or not. The idea of this is to assume that they always have boats somewhere and can use them as they please without declaring the purchase of boats. This will allow them to both narrow the table and flank march on their narrowed flank as well if they wish.

One other suggestion - EHC in Maurikian and Thematic Byzantines may skirmish if armed with a missile weapon. Not too strongly committed to that one, but putting it up for discussion.

Adrian

[scott holder]

Go back and look at Frank's initial suggestion on Shieldwall. Ignore charging, following-up, etc.

How would you handle a unit armed with 2HCW in subsequent bounds of melee? Assume the unit counts shielded on the first bound of HTH and fights with 2HCW while in Shieldwall (Hastings makes the strongest case for that capability).

Okay, next bound, same combat. Assume the Shieldwall formation still applies (note I'm being deliberately vague here about what impact that would have in terms of factors, disorder, whatever). Now what? Do you continue to count 2HCW? If so, is it now shielded or shieldless? If you don't count it, does the 2HCW "revert" to plain ole SA, stay shielded and get whatever Shieldwall bonus applies? I can certainly make a case for warriors of the period carrying more than one weapon, particularly axemen who typically also carried a sword of some type in addition to their battle axe.

So much minutia.

scott

[AntiokosIII]

Hmmmm....I see where you're going, Scott, but it's tough to picture the Huscarls dropping the 2 handed axes while locked in combat; also switching from 2H axe to sword and shield while in combat would be very tricky.

OTOH, if we have the front rank Huscarls in shieldwall getting a -1 to opponent's HTH factor in every round, that would cut the shieldless bonus (assumimg HI) from a +2 to a +1, which is still prettty good in a second round, with full second rank support and the other guy down to "other weapons" in most cases. I'd be surprised if the numbers didn't add up to this being a pretty nice advantage and more to the point encourage folks to field big fat historical shieldwall units; I'm thinking 12 stands, front rank IrrB HI 2HCW, sh; second rank Irr C MI JLS, Sh; Third rank Irr D MI JLS. You'd have the Huscarls, Select Fyrd, and Great Fyrd all in one big mass (which is pretty accurate) that would be quite tough but immobile and brittle. Allow them to keep Shieldwall if recoiled, but not to charge impetuously. You'd have to allow charges or else two shieldwalls could never come into contact. Maybe say they can't ever charge mounted while in Shieldwall?

[Siward]