Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

I have always thought the rule requiring regulars to have even rows of elements to be an unecessary restriction.  After all, a four figure element represents 40 men wide and 5 ranks deep.  A unit that is 8 elements, 3 in the first 2 rows and 2 in the rear represents less deep ranks in the rear elements, 120 men wide by 13 ranks deep.  

Phil

[joncleaves]

Please note that one of the FIRST issues we decided on at FHE back in early
2000 was regulars and even ranks.

It's a done deal guys - save it for x-rules.

[Ed Forbes]

>Or how about this one:
Consider a regular body of 4 LMI elements is in block formation (2x2).
When
its detachment of 3 LI elements join and form the back rank, is the new
form
of the block formation 2x2x3 or 2x2x2x1?
-PB

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:04:44 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> Can't be done if parent is 2x2. 3 element LI det if regular has only
> two
> legal blocks - 1x3 and 3x1.
>
> It is possible to construct a det and a parent such that they cannot
> be
> joined. I recommend against it.
>

>I have always thought the rule requiring regulars to have even rows of
>elements to be an unecessary restriction. After all, a four figure
element
>represents 40 men wide and 5 ranks deep. A unit that is 8 elements, 3
in the
>first 2 rows and 2 in the rear represents less deep ranks in the rear
>elements, 120 men wide by 13 ranks deep.
>
>Phil

I am glad to see that others also share my thoughts on the illogic of
this issue of forcing of regulars to adhere to mandatory formations and
give irregs a pass. It should be irrg formations that are locked into
required formations and given handicaps, not regulars. The same is true
for movement also.

One of the advantages of regular formations is being able to cope with
varying terrain and the tendency of line formations to pull apart when
moving forward. A line that is ordered and continous had a very definite
advantage when meeting an enemy line that was not continous due to
breaking apart in movement. This is one point military historians all
agree on.

One such source, Hans Delbruck's book "Warfare in Antiquity", makes this
point clearly in his discussions on the Roman army and the advantage of
the maniples in the advance to hold together close-knit formations during
the combat approach march as opposed to the phalanx of the hoplites and
why the Romans discarded the phalanx formation. The intervals between
maniples in combat conditions ( as against the drill field ) were held
narrow to avoid enemy penetration of the formation. The advantage the
Roman army had over its opponents was as the line moved forward the
Pincipes ( the second group ) would move forward into line to cover the
Hastati ( the lead group ) if a gap or disorder appeared due to the
natural tendency of the line to pull apart during movement . The Hastati
would now reform behind the Pincipes , the unit still presenting a solid,
ordered front to the enemy. The Triarii could also do this in an extreme
case.

The line formation falls easily in disorder during movement as it is
extremely difficult to march straight ahead in a long line without the
line falling into disorder due to breaks in the line with uneven
movemnet. Irregulars are given no ill effects for line movement under
the rules and regulars are forced into these unfounded restrictions on
formations.

The arbitrary rule that forces regulars to be in exactly even ranks
through the entire formation with no provision to shrink or expand the
formation due to battlefield tactical considerations, and allows
irregulars to do so, is not borne out by historical documentation and
should be removed. Formations were constantly thickened or thinned
depending and the situation and would be represented with less stands in
the rear ranks. I would see no problem with all but the last rank to be
the same number of stands, but requiremnets that forbid regulars 3x3x2
formations is unhistorical and does not stand with accounts of the
peroid.

Movement for regulars should also be higher than irregulars if the
irregulars are not to be disordered. There is no way an irregular line
can move forward at the same max ordered speed as a regular line and not
become disordered. Irrg close order should have either 2 different
movement rates, becoming disordered at the faster rate of advance, or
alternately, become disordered after a second consecutive bound of
movement, forcing the irregulars to halt between movement bounds or
become disordered. This disorder due to movement is borne out all
through recorded history and is one of the main reasons that
historically, regular armies generally beat irregular armies.

Ed Forbes





________________________________________________________________
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/tagj.

[Ed Forbes]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:10:42 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> Please note that one of the FIRST issues we decided on at FHE back in
> early
> 2000 was regulars and even ranks.
>
> It's a done deal guys - save it for x-rules.
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->


If a situation, as in the well documented shrinking or expanding the
width of formation by regulars and irregulars, or the known and well
documented difference in ordered movement rates of regulars vs
irregulars, leads to x-rules that cover most, if not all, ancient
periods, then should this not be a main rule?

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/tagj.

[Chris Bump]

Ed,

I think that many are in agreement with you. On a board whose ends seem to
dictate the end of the earth, Irregulars seem to carry the day more often
than not. It at least appears that an army who can stretch from end to end
and charge his opponents impetitiously will win better than 50% of his
engagements. We have a match here that is flummoxing to many, where the
Polybians seem to always have a pretty easy time with the EIR's. The close
order Romans have no apparent answer for the impetitious Spanish who hit at a
3@9 and 2@6 while the EIR legionnaires only return 6@5. As long as the
Polybians keep a solid front supporting the Spanish, the EIR's seem to melt
in front of the earlier, and so one would think less lethal, army.

I think that many, perhaps even a majority of those playing believe that
Regulars should have more advantages than irregulars than they currently do.
Because they don't we migrate to armies that atleast have a fair mix of
irregulars for hitting power. Maybe that is historical, maybe not. My point
after this long winded write is that Warrior, like a torpedo is out of the
shoot. It appears that Jon and the FHE are on a schedule that must be met,
and so as we propose new rules or dramatic rules changes, we only delay the
process and exasperate those doing the work. They are basically in the edit
stage and pretty much everyone is aiding by finding syntax errors or
omissions in the rules as they exist now. Whether the flavor is as historic
as we would like or not is irrelevant today. X rules seem to be the
compromise FHE are willing to accept, lets finish the initial product and
then come back with revisions or x-rules. I write this because many out here
in the great un-washed public are equally as frustrated, but also probably
just as thankful as you are that the FHE are undertaking this enterprise.

Chris

[joncleaves]

Ed
That is a remote possibility that would have to begin with two things:

1. plenty of time has passed after publication so the Warrior player
community is established and people have a common understanding of Warrior
(as opposed to having an understanding of how they thought WRG 7.x should be
played). I'm talking years here

2. the addition to the rules has the support of the overwhelming majority of
players who feel like releasing us from our no Warrior 1.1 promise. I do not
see that happening, but several years from now I won't be completely
close-minded to it.

3. the addition to the rules does not destroy the basic character of any
published army.

4. FHE feels the rule addition is historically supported. This would
actually be the hardest to overcome in the case we are talking about as we
already have looked into this one extensively and feel we have it right.

Bottom line: you have several years ahead of you, at a minimum, before this
or anything else gets added to the basic rules and even then I don't see this
overcoming 2, 3, and especially 4.

I recommend you write the x-rule and submit and play it that way in your
basement.
Jon

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated Sun, 5 Aug 2001 9:24:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed C
Forbes <eforbes100@...> writes:

> One of the advantages of regular formations is being able to cope with
> varying terrain and the tendency of line formations to pull apart when
> moving forward. A line that is ordered and continous had a very definite
> advantage when meeting an enemy line that was not continous due to
> breaking apart in movement. This is one point military historians all
> agree on.
>
> One such source, Hans Delbruck's book "Warfare in Antiquity", makes this
> point clearly in his discussions on the Roman army and the advantage of
> the maniples in the advance to hold together close-knit formations during
> the combat approach march as opposed to the phalanx of the hoplites and
> why the Romans discarded the phalanx formation. The intervals between
> maniples in combat conditions ( as against the drill field ) were held
> narrow to avoid enemy penetration of the formation. The advantage the
> Roman army had over its opponents was as the line moved forward the
> Pincipes ( the second group ) would move forward into line to cover the
> Hastati ( the lead group ) if a gap or disorder appeared due to the
> natural tendency of the line to pull apart during movement . The Hastati
> would now reform behind the Pincipes , the unit still presenting a solid,
> ordered front to the enemy. The Triarii could also do this in an extreme
> case.

At this point we can decide that each maniple is a separate unit and therefore
you can vary the intervals between them accordingly. Nowhere will you find
reference to maniples breaking into small pieces to maneuver. The maniple
maintained its regular formation internally and the legion adjusted the gaps.
An historical representation of this on the table would have many small,
separate units that were aligned in ranks.

> The line formation falls easily in disorder during movement as it is
> extremely difficult to march straight ahead in a long line without the
> line falling into disorder due to breaks in the line with uneven
> movemnet. Irregulars are given no ill effects for line movement under
> the rules and regulars are forced into these unfounded restrictions on
> formations.

Your right, it is difficult to move long distances in a straight line. This is
especially true when you are concerned about maintaining that line. Therefore,
regulars should be slower because they spend so much time dressing their ranks
while the irregulars just move forward to the designated position and reform
there. The irregulars should not be penalized for being out of formation
because they really do not have a formation, especially when moving.

> The arbitrary rule that forces regulars to be in exactly even ranks
> through the entire formation with no provision to shrink or expand the
> formation due to battlefield tactical considerations, and allows
> irregulars to do so, is not borne out by historical documentation and
> should be removed. Formations were constantly thickened or thinned
> depending and the situation and would be represented with less stands in
> the rear ranks. I would see no problem with all but the last rank to be
> the same number of stands, but requiremnets that forbid regulars 3x3x2
> formations is unhistorical and does not stand with accounts of the
> peroid.

I do not know which accounts you are reading. Units have the ability to shrink
or expand based on conditions. It is called expansion or contraction by
elements in Warrior. Did Alexander's phalanx fight or move in uneven ranks?
Did Ceasar's legions? I think you need to look at the surving drill manuals and
see that there are no formations adopted by regulars that did not have even
ranks.

> Movement for regulars should also be higher than irregulars if the
> irregulars are not to be disordered. There is no way an irregular line
> can move forward at the same max ordered speed as a regular line and not
> become disordered. Irrg close order should have either 2 different
> movement rates, becoming disordered at the faster rate of advance, or
> alternately, become disordered after a second consecutive bound of
> movement, forcing the irregulars to halt between movement bounds or
> become disordered. This disorder due to movement is borne out all
> through recorded history and is one of the main reasons that
> historically, regular armies generally beat irregular armies.

See previous comments about movement. As for historically, for every example of
a regular army defeating an irregular one I can provide you with an example of
an irregular army defeating a regular one. For starters, how about Teutonburger
Wald or Adrianople. Finally, how do you define a "regular" army. Even the
armies of Rome and Macedonia had irregular components in them.

Jacob Kovel
Money Horse & US Army Military History Instructor

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 08/07/2001 11:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Eaglewars@... writes:

<< I do not know which accounts you are reading. Units have the ability to
shrink or expand based on conditions. It is called expansion or contraction
by elements in Warrior. Did Alexander's phalanx fight or move in uneven
ranks? Did Ceasar's legions? I think you need to look at the surving drill
manuals and see that there are no formations adopted by regulars that did not
have even ranks. >>


Jake,

You are all wet on this one. What would any formation do if it had uneven
numbers of troops? Discard them or have them stay behind? NO they would
form their standard frontage and fill in the rear ranks from there. If depth
was desired then they would create the numbers of lines in density desired
and unit frontage would be created from there. How would you deal with
campaign casulties? By the way Regular units cannot contract and expand as
you describe because often they are limited by the necessity to maintain even
alignment.

The very nature of Regulars maintains the training to maintain even ranks
because it was advantageous in combat and movement to do so. YOU nor anyone
else can demonstrate examples in history where a Regular unit did not pass
between two geographic features because by doing so would have created uneven
ranks. Your comments about irregulars not caring about cohesion is also
questionable. IF they are to be granted the assumption that they do not care
and simply reform at the desired location, than logically they should count
as disordered as long as their ranks are uneven.

We allow troops to charge, even when disordered, but we do not allow for the
possibility that Regulars could use their training to navigate a difficult
path and then reorder upon completion of said path. Perhaps a nice
compromise would be to declare Regulars disordered if they find themselves in
uneven rank configurarations. It could be a cesation cured form and would
penalize Regulars for their desire to reform and at the same time grant them
the same abiltiy to move where their irregular equivilents do not fear to go.
This would not likely affect the game mechanics at all, and would provide
the Regulars with the flexibilty that they should have as opposed to their
irregular equivilents.

Chris

[Ed Forbes]

Jacob,

> At this point we can decide that each maniple is a separate unit and
> therefore you can vary the intervals between them accordingly.
> Nowhere will you find reference to maniples breaking into small
> pieces to maneuver. The maniple maintained its regular formation
> internally and the legion adjusted the gaps. An historical
> representation of this on the table would have many small, separate
> units that were aligned in ranks.

At no point did I indicate that maniples maneuver independently and I
agree that they did not. It was not until Rome developed the cohort that
the Roman line could delegate a part of the army for flank defence. This
inability to turn only a part of the line to the flank or rear was the
main reason for the disaster at Cannae. The legion was also only an
administrative organization and was not maneuvered independently on the
field. If 2 legions were on the field, it was still fought as a single
line.

My point was, and still is, that the maniples were used to provide
flexibility and order in a forward moving line, something that Rome's
enemies had extreme problems with. A line of hoplites ( and the Roman
foot can be considered as such ) that was in good order and contacting a
disordered line of hoplites ( or disordered mass ) almost always won.

>
> Your right, it is difficult to move long distances in a straight
> line. This is especially true when you are concerned about
> maintaining that line. Therefore, regulars should be slower because
> they spend so much time dressing their ranks while the irregulars
> just move forward to the designated position and reform there. The
> irregulars should not be penalized for being out of formation
> because they really do not have a formation, especially when moving.

see above for why the regulars will win the combat in such a case.

>
> I do not know which accounts you are reading. Units have the
> ability to shrink or expand based on conditions. It is called
> expansion or contraction by elements in Warrior. Did Alexander's
> phalanx fight or move in uneven ranks? Did Ceasar's legions? I
> think you need to look at the surving drill manuals and see that
> there are no formations adopted by regulars that did not have even
> ranks.

I get the feeling that you are seeing a single figure and internalizing
it as a single man. If you stop to rationalize what these figures truly
represent, you will see where you went wrong. A line of close order foot
3 stands wide and 2 stands deep gives 12 figures X 2 figures. At 1:1
scale, this is
about 120 men wide and 8 ranks deep. If the line was increased to 10
ranks deep ( all even ranks ), an additional 240 men are added to the
block, or 1 stand. You now have a block 120 men wide and 10 ranks deep
represented by 3 stands in the front, 3 stands in the middle and 1 stand
in the back. Notice at no time are the regulars not in even ranks. Only
the lead figures that we use to imperfectly simulate what is really on
the ground are not in even ranks.

The problem is that at one point the rules treat the lead figures as an
abstraction and in another point ( requirement for even number of figures
) they are treated as if they were a single man.

Ed Forbes
________________________________________________________________
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/tagj.

[joncleaves]

Chris

First, please don't let anyone be confused on the issue. The rule for
regulars in even ranks [OF ELEMENTS - a game function] is not changing.
Members of this egroup may debate any issue amongst themselves so long as it
has anything to do with ancient/medieval history or gaming, but it is my
responsibility to point out which such issues are closed from a basic
rulebook standpoint and which are not.

Second, everyone please remember that in almost all cases, the division of
troops into "units" in Warrior is fundamentally arbitrary. Trying to get
this rule changed so that you can get your regulars into some "unit"
formation of an optimal number of "elements" [a totally arbitrary game
function] is difficult to support with "history". Please remember that I am
a "design for effect" game designer.

[Ed Forbes]

>
> Second, everyone please remember that in almost all cases, the
> division of
> troops into "units" in Warrior is fundamentally arbitrary. Trying
> to get
> this rule changed so that you can get your regulars into some "unit"
>
> formation of an optimal number of "elements" [a totally arbitrary
> game
> function] is difficult to support with "history". Please remember
> that I am
> a "design for effect" game designer.
>


Jon,

I agree that "design for effect" in games is the best way to go. I do
admit that I fail to see the "design effect" that enhances the game by
putting a greater restriction on unit formations and battle field
maneuver for regulars than for irregulars. If anything, it should be the
other way round.

My reading of 7th shows Phil only worrying about "aesthetics" of how the
irregulars looked on the table vs regulars ( WRG 7th, Aug 1992, p 18,
line 6 ). This aesthetics of display has evolved into a major advantage
for irregulars over regulars.

The requirement for the number of elements in each rank needs to be
changed to remove this unhistorical advantage of irregulars over
regulars. The rule, as a short and dirty fix, needs to be the same for
both. Either allow for both or deny for both.

Ed Forbes
________________________________________________________________
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/tagj.

[joncleaves]

Please be careful when you make categorical statements about 'why' a certain
rule is a certain way in Warrior -only FHE can do that and you may mislead other
players.

PB may have had that rule in WRG 7th for 'aesthetics'. Not relevant to our
decision.

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

First of all, you should not be responding to these innocuous messages during
your vacation. Put your priorities in line. Secondly I am fully on line
with you and understand that no rules changes are going to be made. I don't
necessarily agree, but completely understand your desires to meet a deadline.
Finally, just to clarify, I was not suggesting that regular units should be
allowed to be anything other than even number of elements, but rather that
regular units with even numbers of elements should be afforded the same
flexibility as irregulars to form into blocks with uneven ranks, perhaps at
the cost of becoming disordered, because of the demands of terrain or other
considerations.

Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 08/08/2001 7:17:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

<< Jon,

I agree that "design for effect" in games is the best way to go. I do
admit that I fail to see the "design effect" that enhances the game by
putting a greater restriction on unit formations and battle field
maneuver for regulars than for irregulars. If anything, it should be the
other way round.

My reading of 7th shows Phil only worrying about "aesthetics" of how the
irregulars looked on the table vs regulars ( WRG 7th, Aug 1992, p 18,
line 6 ). This aesthetics of display has evolved into a major advantage
for irregulars over regulars.

The requirement for the number of elements in each rank needs to be
changed to remove this unhistorical advantage of irregulars over
regulars. The rule, as a short and dirty fix, needs to be the same for
both. Either allow for both or deny for both.

Ed Forbes >>
My point exactly.

Chris

[Ed Forbes]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:29:27 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> Please be careful when you make categorical statements about 'why' a
> certain rule is a certain way in Warrior -only FHE can do that and
> you may mislead other players.
>
> PB may have had that rule in WRG 7th for 'aesthetics'. Not relevant
> to our decision.
>
>

Jon,

What categorical statements on why Warrior is as it is?

I said " I do admit that I fail to see the "design effect" that
enhances the game by putting a greater restriction on unit formations and
battle field maneuver for regulars than for irregulars." This is not a
matter of dispute, only a recognition of what is true. Regulars are at a
disadvantage.

Is the FHE reasoning behind keeping this rule in past posts? If it is I
will go back and check it out. I must admit that I have had the
impression that it was kept because it was in 7th before and nobody
brought up the issue fully.

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/tagj.