Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:23:35 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
>
> Now, if you had historical evidence of an actual regular body of
> troops, that
> all served the same local ('company') commander, of 9-12 element
> equivalents
> in size (1800-3800 men for close order foot) that spread itself out
> 4 men
> (1E) deep to 'screen', then I might have to relent. Except I know
> the answer
> already.
>


This lets out most irreg forces as these units are almost always ad hock
groupings of small to very small numbers of men under their local leader,
grouped into larger formations we call units.

Why you would agree that such an ad hock formation of irregs be allowed
to stretch out 10E in a single line and return to column while forbidding
it to reg troops is beyond me. History shows that this is much more
difficult for irreg troops than for reg troops to do this kind of
maneuver. If any type in large units should be forbidden to move to/from
long line to column it is irregulars.

Historically, large units of irregs were limited to a line from which
they stayed in or a column in which they stayed. They were not capable
of doing extended maneuver, as your rules state; Page 8, 2.12 : Irreg
troops "can only obey orders such as 'Follow me!'.."

Historically, it is the reg formations that were able to do these complex
maneuvers, not irregs.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

In a message dated 8/31/02 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

<< Subj: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Contracting 10E to 5E per Ewan
Date: 8/31/02 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: JonCleaves@...
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com">
WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com</A>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com

In a message dated 8/31/2002 03:29:35 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:


> Being a macedonian/seleucid player - and one who has read fairly widely i
> remember an instance where the pikes were strung out on a flank in a thin
> line to stop the enemy cavalry.
>

Yes, sure. But in a 'unit' of 3000 men 4 deep or in three 'units' of 1000
men four deep? The issue isn't a thin pike line, it is the nature of a
unit
and how we represent it on the table top.

>>


In "real life", if such a "unit" had been deployed in such a way, it would
take all day to bring them back to a "normal" formation. And all the time
they are standing there, feeling all kinds of naked without normal feelings
of depth and support, they are calling the dumb-ass general who stuck them
out there all kinds of names under their breath.
If the rules do not give you the means to recover quickly from a
self-inflicted difficulty, I have no problem with that. I would be curious
to read the historical justification for a 750 x 4 man pike deployment.

John the OFM

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/31/2002 23:11:38 Central Daylight Time,
johncarroll453@... writes:


> In "real life", if such a "unit" had been deployed in such a way, it would
> take all day to bring them back to a "normal" formation. And all the time
> they are standing there, feeling all kinds of naked without normal feelings
>
> of depth and support, they are calling the dumb-ass general who stuck them
> out there all kinds of names under their breath.
> If the rules do not give you the means to recover quickly from a
> self-inflicted difficulty, I have no problem with that. I would be curious
>
> to read the historical justification for a 750 x 4 man pike deployment.
>
> John the OFM
>

Thank you, John.


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

[Ed Forbes]

So why is it considered feasible and logical for irreg units to move
large units to / from column while considering it infeasible that regs
could do it?

This is the entire logical inconsistency in the rules that I have been
talking about.

If there is some magic number of elements that is considered to large to
maneuver reg units in, the number of irreg elements that could logically
do so would be smaller still as irreg troops, by the very definition of
the rules, do not maneuver as well as reg units.

My objection is not that 10E reg units are not allowed to move to / from
line column, but that no such restriction is then placed on irregs. This
produces an extreme logical inconsistency in the rules that I have still
not seen directly addressed.

Ed

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:46:49 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> In a message dated 8/31/2002 23:11:38 Central Daylight Time,
> johncarroll453@... writes:
>
>
> > In "real life", if such a "unit" had been deployed in such a way,
> it would
> > take all day to bring them back to a "normal" formation. And all
> the time
> > they are standing there, feeling all kinds of naked without normal
> feelings
> >
> > of depth and support, they are calling the dumb-ass general who
> stuck them
> > out there all kinds of names under their breath.
> > If the rules do not give you the means to recover quickly from a
> > self-inflicted difficulty, I have no problem with that. I would
> be curious
> >
> > to read the historical justification for a 750 x 4 man pike
> deployment.
> >
> > John the OFM
> >
>
> Thank you, John.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated 9/1/02 3:58:52 AM, eforbes100@... writes:

>So why is it considered feasible and logical for irreg units to move
>large units to / from column while considering it infeasible that regs
>could do it?

Sure it is possible for an irregular unit to move from a column to a 10E
line, but it would take 5 turns of basically doing nothing to accomplish that
maneuver. A regular column can get to 5E x 2E in one turn. True, it cannot
get to 10E x 1E but it can certainly get to 8E or 12E x 1E in 2 or 3 turns
respectively, versus 4 or 6 turns for irregulars. As Jon has suggested, some
unit sizes are sub-optimal for regulars. That does not mean that they are
less maneuverable.

>This is the entire logical inconsistency in the rules that I have been
>talking about.

On the contrary, sub-optimal unit sizes are not illogical. In all cases,
regulars can still out maneuver irregulars. As someone who has spent
hundreds of hours on the drill fields, I can tell you that we always tried to
maintain even ranks and never deliberately occupied a formation that was not
in even ranks. And as trained soldiers, we could maneuvered more effectively
than a mob.

>If there is some magic number of elements that is considered to large to
>maneuver reg units in, the number of irreg elements that could logically
>do so would be smaller still as irreg troops, by the very definition of
>the rules, do not maneuver as well as reg units.

Again, I do not see your logic. Mobs can be as large or larger than regular
units. If they are larger, it takes them longer to make the formation
changes you suggest. They are not maneuvering more efficiently than
regulars. The simple solution is to use 8 or 12 element units of regulars.
They can certainly get to a wide assortment of formations at twice the speed
of irregulars.

Jacob Kovel

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 08/30/2002 6:33:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

<< I sometimes get the feeling that some players feel they have a 'right' to
have any unit from 2-12 elements work on the table in the exact same way as
any other unit of any other size. This will never happen, so I am not sure
what the issue is. >>

The flaw with this point is that a 12 element unit of regulars is more
flexible than a 10 element unit. A 12 element unit can move from a single
element column to a 3 element frontage. From there it can expand into a 4
element frontage and the following turn to a 6 element frontage. A 10
element regular unit, under the current rules cannot. So following your
line of thinking that bigger bodies are more unwieldley and hence not as
manueuverable, why is a body which is 20 percent larger, more flexible?

Other than aesthetics, there is no historical basis for limiting the
dimensions of regular formations vs those of irregulars. I should say that I
cannot find anything.
Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 08/30/2002 7:41:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

<< -Unit size is mostly arbitrary as ancient bodies of troops did not use the
same concept of 'units' we do today. The optimal sizes available and played
are designed to produce realistic 'effects' and we feel they do. >>

That being the case, then there are truly no reason other than aesthetics to
limit Regular unit formations vs irregular.
Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 08/31/2002 11:47:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

<< > In "real life", if such a "unit" had been deployed in such a way, it
would
> take all day to bring them back to a "normal" formation. And all the time
> they are standing there, feeling all kinds of naked without normal
feelings
>
> of depth and support, they are calling the dumb-ass general who stuck them
> out there all kinds of names under their breath.
> If the rules do not give you the means to recover quickly from a
> self-inflicted difficulty, I have no problem with that. I would be
curious
>
> to read the historical justification for a 750 x 4 man pike deployment.
>
> John the OFM
>

Thank you, John.
>>
Yea So?
Let the minis question the dumb ass general. Let it take all day to bring
them back under control. Currently dumbass general does not have ability to
do it and irregular general who does not know what extended line is does.
Problematic. If we are going to limit what can be done based on history,
than there is alot about the game that needs to be reeled in.
Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 09/01/2002 9:54:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
Eaglewars@... writes:



Sure it is possible for an irregular unit to move from a column to a 10E
line, but it would take 5 turns of basically doing nothing to accomplish
that
maneuver. A regular column can get to 5E x 2E in one turn. True, it cannot
get to 10E x 1E but it can certainly get to 8E or 12E x 1E in 2 or 3 turns
respectively, versus 4 or 6 turns for irregulars. As Jon has suggested,
some
unit sizes are sub-optimal for regulars. That does not mean that they are
less maneuverable.

Jake,
What are you talking about? How can a 10 element body get to a frontage of 8
elements? Why is it that a 12 element body is more flexible than a 10
element body. If elements are arbitrary as John stated earlier we are simply
talking about fewer people in the formation. Why is a 6 or 8 element body
more flexible than a 5 element body?


On the contrary, sub-optimal unit sizes are not illogical. In all cases,
regulars can still out maneuver irregulars. As someone who has spent
hundreds of hours on the drill fields, I can tell you that we always tried
to
maintain even ranks and never deliberately occupied a formation that was not
in even ranks. And as trained soldiers, we could maneuvered more
effectively
than a mob.

Jake, follow me as I smile while reading this paragraph. What would your
platoon do with 37 men? Subunits are NEVER the same size throughout a unit
other than in the TOE. When we drill and focus on even numbers of people
that is for the sake of drill, and for simplicity. Once battle starts, we
want bodies in the formation. NO one cares if the platoon has 43 guys.
Would rather it be so than 36, despite how that would look on the Plain.
Large formations are cumbersome, no doubt. BUT we can safely deduce that a
large formation of Regular troops were less unwieldley than an equally large
number of irregular troops. We can safely deduce that a large formation of
regulars could be given directions to defend a long ridgeline or stream and
they could assume the formation necessary to do so in at least as organized
and efficient a manner as an equally large body of irregulars. Current
Warrior rules do not allow such.

>If there is some magic number of elements that is considered to large to
>maneuver reg units in, the number of irreg elements that could logically
>do so would be smaller still as irreg troops, by the very definition of
>the rules, do not maneuver as well as reg units.

Again, I do not see your logic. Mobs can be as large or larger than regular
units. If they are larger, it takes them longer to make the formation
changes you suggest. They are not maneuvering more efficiently than
regulars. The simple solution is to use 8 or 12 element units of regulars.
They can certainly get to a wide assortment of formations at twice the speed
of irregulars.

Jacob Kovel >>

So what you are saying is that there is a magic number. Simply put there
must be an even numbered quotient when the number of elements is divided by
two. Okay, the question still begs to be answered. Why? Why is a 12
element body more flexible than a 10 element body?
Chris

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002 8:04:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump
writes:

> That being the case, then there are truly no reason other
> than aesthetics to
> limit Regular unit formations vs irregular.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I am afraid I am going to have to leave
this thread, as I have helped keep it going much longer than I should have
already.
BUT: see my other mail on an x-rule to help those who do not agree with the way
this rule works.

Jon