Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote: kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

While I'm not Mark, off the top of my head I know that Milanese
condottieri dismounted and defeated the Swiss pike head on at Arbedo
with cut down lances and swords.

Have fun!
Cole
Kelly****

Cole, I just pulled this off the net about the Battle of Arbedo. . .

"One of the few defeats suffered by the Swiss in the fifteenth century. The
Swiss Confederation was raiding south over the Alps, and gaining territory in
the northern Po Valley. Their actions provoked Filipppo Maria Visconti, who sent
his best generals against the invading Swiss. The Swiss were outnumbered two to
one, and despite initial successes against an Italian cavalry charge, they were
soon put under serious pressure by a combination of crossbow fire on the flanks,
and columns of dismounted men at arms in the centre. The larger Milanese force
began to push back the Swiss, who were only saved from total disaster by the
appearance of a band of foragers, who the Milanese were convinced represented a
major new force. When the Milanese force pulled back to reform, the Swiss fled
the battlefield, having taken heavy casualties."

I was fishing for a battle where the Swiss or any pike unit was utterly
crushed from a frontal attack not involving them being out flanked and shot to
pieces and outnumbered. That being said, I want to thank you for trying. Can
you think of any infantry that did beat them head up without having a numerical
advantage or withering flank fire or flank attacks?

kelly







SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

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

[Mark Stone]

kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might argue I know
nothing about Medieval warfar as well, but here goes:

Part of the problem with assessing the Swiss is that we are talking about a
troop type that comes into its own at the tail end of our period. The solution
to the Swiss lies beyond the scope of Warrior, and involves tactics, arms, and
armament that take us into the Rennaissance.

Part of the obvious answer is gunpowder. When the accuracy, rate of fire, and
destructiveness of gunpowder weapons evolves substantially beyond the Medieval
handgun, then dense formations of troops not armed with a gunpowder weapon
themselves start to lose their appeal.

There probably are isolated examples like the one that Cole cites of high
morale, highly trained, heavily armored foot standing up to and/or beating the
Swiss outright. This interaction, however, is one that Warrior gets right.
Consider a unit of Condottieri (SHK) back by seargeants (HK), dismounted.
Assume they charge a column of Swiss who are also charging them. Assume also
the K have had time to reorder after dismounting. Assume the Swiss are LHI in
the front.

The K are 4@4 (front rank) + 2@2 (back rank) = 16.
The Swiss are 12@1 = 18.
That's _easily_ within die rolls to change the outcome (remember, in any given
combat the odds that both sides will roll even are extremely low).

The other part of the answer is tactical doctrine. The Medieval assumption, with
respect to hand-to-hand combat, is that basically two things matter: having
greater density than your opponent, and having a longer pointy stick than your
opponent. Compare, for example, the length of an 11th century Norman lance with
the length of a 15th century German or Italian lance. Compare the length of a
spear used by foot soldiers in the 3rd Crusade with the length of a Swiss pike.
Density can be affected either by adding more men, adding more armor, or both.

It is at the beginning of the Rennaissance that we add to this mix a counter
troop type: the sword and buckler man. He operates in loose formations, with
little armor, and a weapon with very little reach. How does this work? It works
because once you've closed to close quarters, being a large number of men
tightly packed can be a disadvantage, having a lot of armor that makes it
difficult to move or maneuver can be a disadvantage, and having a 12 foot+
weapon against an opponent who is 2 feet in front of you is a decided
disadvantage. The trick is to get to close quarters. But that is exactly the
tactical doctrine practiced by the sword and buclker men: how to flow, or ease
into the enemy line without charging full tilt into their pointy sticks.

I would argue that there are troops and troop types that excelled at single
combat, and who followed a tactical doctrine designed to "disorder" both battle
lines so that the outcome then depended on prowess at single combat. I would
also argue that this phenomenon is an exception during the time period Warrior
covers, and thus is very difficult to capture within Warrior's rules. As
supporting evidence, I'll note that the troops who most excelled at this kind
of disruptive single combat have proved most difficult to simulate within the
Warrior system:
- Vikings in general, berserks in particular (do not make the traditional
mistake of assuming that berserker "frenzy" is without plan, intent, or
training);
- Varangians;
- Almughuvars;
- the elite among longbowmen (as they appear on either the 100 Year's War
English list, or their continental counterpart, French Ordannance);
- Sword and buckler men.

I'll take the argument a step further and suggest that there was a cavalry
equivalent of the sword and bucklerman, who used a short bow fired in a
straight trajectory at point black range as effectively a hand to hand weapon,
with the intent of disrupting cavalry lines into a similar set of single
engagements. This is a Middle Asian style of cavalry warfare that evolves by
the Rennaissance into the troop type we know as the Hussar, but was prominent
in Mongol armies, and probably has its origins as far back as the Scythians.
And again, I'd suggest that this kind of cavalry interaction, and the troops
associated with it, is something Warrior has had greater than average
difficulty in representing.

Just my opinion, of course.


-Mark Stone

Greetings Ed,
I have a huge issue with the fact a shaken unit can ever melee steady and
shieled. Once you loose cohession you should loose your special fighting
abilities.

[joncleaves]

Kick ass post, Mark. Dead on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:02:03 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rule Question: Swiss recoil


kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might argue I know
nothing about Medieval warfar as well, but here goes:

Part of the problem with assessing the Swiss is that we are talking about a
troop type that comes into its own at the tail end of our period. The solution
to the Swiss lies beyond the scope of Warrior, and involves tactics, arms, and
armament that take us into the Rennaissance.

Part of the obvious answer is gunpowder. When the accuracy, rate of fire, and
destructiveness of gunpowder weapons evolves substantially beyond the Medieval
handgun, then dense formations of troops not armed with a gunpowder weapon
themselves start to lose their appeal.

There probably are isolated examples like the one that Cole cites of high
morale, highly trained, heavily armored foot standing up to and/or beating the
Swiss outright. This interaction, however, is one that Warrior gets right.
Consider a unit of Condottieri (SHK) back by seargeants (HK), dismounted.
Assume they charge a column of Swiss who are also charging them. Assume also
the K have had time to reorder after dismounting. Assume the Swiss are LHI in
the front.

The K are 4@4 (front rank) + 2@2 (back rank) = 16.
The Swiss are 12@1 = 18.
That's _easily_ within die rolls to change the outcome (remember, in any given
combat the odds that both sides will roll even are extremely low).

The other part of the answer is tactical doctrine. The Medieval assumption, with
respect to hand-to-hand combat, is that basically two things matter: having
greater density than your opponent, and having a longer pointy stick than your
opponent. Compare, for example, the length of an 11th century Norman lance with
the length of a 15th century German or Italian lance. Compare the length of a
spear used by foot soldiers in the 3rd Crusade with the length of a Swiss pike.
Density can be affected either by adding more men, adding more armor, or both.

It is at the beginning of the Rennaissance that we add to this mix a counter
troop type: the sword and buckler man. He operates in loose formations, with
little armor, and a weapon with very little reach. How does this work? It works
because once you've closed to close quarters, being a large number of men
tightly packed can be a disadvantage, having a lot of armor that makes it
difficult to move or maneuver can be a disadvantage, and having a 12 foot+
weapon against an opponent who is 2 feet in front of you is a decided
disadvantage. The trick is to get to close quarters. But that is exactly the
tactical doctrine practiced by the sword and buclker men: how to flow, or ease
into the enemy line without charging full tilt into their pointy sticks.

I would argue that there are troops and troop types that excelled at single
combat, and who followed a tactical doctrine designed to "disorder" both battle
lines so that the outcome then depended on prowess at single combat. I would
also argue that this phenomenon is an exception during the time period Warrior
covers, and thus is very difficult to capture within Warrior's rules. As
supporting evidence, I'll note that the troops who most excelled at this kind
of disruptive single combat have proved most difficult to simulate within the
Warrior system:
- Vikings in general, berserks in particular (do not make the traditional
mistake of assuming that berserker "frenzy" is without plan, intent, or
training);
- Varangians;
- Almughuvars;
- the elite among longbowmen (as they appear on either the 100 Year's War
English list, or their continental counterpart, French Ordannance);
- Sword and buckler men.

I'll take the argument a step further and suggest that there was a cavalry
equivalent of the sword and bucklerman, who used a short bow fired in a
straight trajectory at point black range as effectively a hand to hand weapon,
with the intent of disrupting cavalry lines into a similar set of single
engagements. This is a Middle Asian style of cavalry warfare that evolves by
the Rennaissance into the troop type we know as the Hussar, but was prominent
in Mongol armies, and probably has its origins as far back as the Scythians.
And again, I'd suggest that this kind of cavalry interaction, and the troops
associated with it, is something Warrior has had greater than average
difficulty in representing.

Just my opinion, of course.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Cole's example does not meet my criteria. I'm interested in discovering
any little tidbit about the Swiss being beaten head up by a force that is not
flanking them with troops or missile fire and that is of equal numerical
strength. In the case of Arbedo, the Swiss are outnumbered 2:1. It perhaps is
not possible to find this. Otherwise I think the remainder of your comments are
quite cogent as is usually the case. I always appreciate reading your well
organized and thought out responses.

k
Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that from the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might argue I know
nothing about Medieval warfare as well, but here goes:

Part of the problem with assessing the Swiss is that we are talking about a
troop type that comes into its own at the tail end of our period. The solution
to the Swiss lies beyond the scope of Warrior, and involves tactics, arms, and
armament that take us into the Renaissance.

Part of the obvious answer is gunpowder. When the accuracy, rate of fire, and
destructiveness of gunpowder weapons evolves substantially beyond the Medieval
handgun, then dense formations of troops not armed with a gunpowder weapon
themselves start to lose their appeal.

There probably are isolated examples like the one that Cole cites of high
morale, highly trained, heavily armored foot standing up to and/or beating the
Swiss outright. This interaction, however, is one that Warrior gets right.
Consider a unit of Condottieri (SHK) back by seargeants (HK), dismounted.
Assume they charge a column of Swiss who are also charging them. Assume also
the K have had time to reorder after dismounting. Assume the Swiss are LHI in
the front.

The K are 4@4 (front rank) + 2@2 (back rank) = 16.
The Swiss are 12@1 = 18.
That's _easily_ within die rolls to change the outcome (remember, in any given
combat the odds that both sides will roll even are extremely low).

The other part of the answer is tactical doctrine. The Medieval assumption, with
respect to hand-to-hand combat, is that basically two things matter: having
greater density than your opponent, and having a longer pointy stick than your
opponent. Compare, for example, the length of an 11th century Norman lance with
the length of a 15th century German or Italian lance. Compare the length of a
spear used by foot soldiers in the 3rd Crusade with the length of a Swiss pike.
Density can be affected either by adding more men, adding more armor, or both.

It is at the beginning of the Rennaissance that we add to this mix a counter
troop type: the sword and buckler man. He operates in loose formations, with
little armor, and a weapon with very little reach. How does this work? It works
because once you've closed to close quarters, being a large number of men
tightly packed can be a disadvantage, having a lot of armor that makes it
difficult to move or maneuver can be a disadvantage, and having a 12 foot+
weapon against an opponent who is 2 feet in front of you is a decided
disadvantage. The trick is to get to close quarters. But that is exactly the
tactical doctrine practiced by the sword and buclker men: how to flow, or ease
into the enemy line without charging full tilt into their pointy sticks.

I would argue that there are troops and troop types that excelled at single
combat, and who followed a tactical doctrine designed to "disorder" both battle
lines so that the outcome then depended on prowess at single combat. I would
also argue that this phenomenon is an exception during the time period Warrior
covers, and thus is very difficult to capture within Warrior's rules. As
supporting evidence, I'll note that the troops who most excelled at this kind
of disruptive single combat have proved most difficult to simulate within the
Warrior system:
- Vikings in general, berserks in particular (do not make the traditional
mistake of assuming that berserker "frenzy" is without plan, intent, or
training);
- Varangians;
- Almughuvars;
- the elite among longbowmen (as they appear on either the 100 Year's War
English list, or their continental counterpart, French Ordannance);
- Sword and buckler men.

I'll take the argument a step further and suggest that there was a cavalry
equivalent of the sword and bucklerman, who used a short bow fired in a
straight trajectory at point black range as effectively a hand to hand weapon,
with the intent of disrupting cavalry lines into a similar set of single
engagements. This is a Middle Asian style of cavalry warfare that evolves by
the Rennaissance into the troop type we know as the Hussar, but was prominent
in Mongol armies, and probably has its origins as far back as the Scythians.
And again, I'd suggest that this kind of cavalry interaction, and the troops
associated with it, is something Warrior has had greater than average
difficulty in representing.

Just my opinion, of course.


-Mark Stone


SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

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

[Greg Regets]

These discussions are fun ... but probably not particularly useful.
It's all a matter of taste and opinion.

A good example is C-in-C's. Warrior gives a bunch of love to Hannabal
and many people look at him as a paragon of generalship. Other
people, come to the conclusion that he faced some very poor generals
and won some big battles ... and the first time he came across a good
Roman general, he got his ass kicked.

Another is troop types. Alexandrian pikemen are great, clearly highly
successful ... but taken from a different point of view, they were
the backbone of an army that scored most of it's wins against Celts
who were a long ways from home, conscripts, and guys with wicker
shields.

Can't you just imagine Jon's great, great, great, great, great, great
grandson, designing Warrior v9.5, trying to figure out how to make
North Vietnam able to defeat the Americans?



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Kick ass post, Mark. Dead on.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:02:03 +0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rule Question: Swiss recoil
>
>
> kelly wilkinson wrote:
> > Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> > beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> > that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> > maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against
such
> > formations.
>
> I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might
argue I know
> nothing about Medieval warfar as well, but here goes:
>
> Part of the problem with assessing the Swiss is that we are talking
about a
> troop type that comes into its own at the tail end of our period.
The solution
> to the Swiss lies beyond the scope of Warrior, and involves
tactics, arms, and
> armament that take us into the Rennaissance.
>
> Part of the obvious answer is gunpowder. When the accuracy, rate of
fire, and
> destructiveness of gunpowder weapons evolves substantially beyond
the Medieval
> handgun, then dense formations of troops not armed with a gunpowder
weapon
> themselves start to lose their appeal.
>
> There probably are isolated examples like the one that Cole cites
of high
> morale, highly trained, heavily armored foot standing up to and/or
beating the
> Swiss outright. This interaction, however, is one that Warrior gets
right.
> Consider a unit of Condottieri (SHK) back by seargeants (HK),
dismounted.
> Assume they charge a column of Swiss who are also charging them.
Assume also
> the K have had time to reorder after dismounting. Assume the Swiss
are LHI in
> the front.
>
> The K are 4@4 (front rank) + 2@2 (back rank) = 16.
> The Swiss are 12@1 = 18.
> That's _easily_ within die rolls to change the outcome (remember,
in any given
> combat the odds that both sides will roll even are extremely low).
>
> The other part of the answer is tactical doctrine. The Medieval
assumption, with
> respect to hand-to-hand combat, is that basically two things
matter: having
> greater density than your opponent, and having a longer pointy
stick than your
> opponent. Compare, for example, the length of an 11th century
Norman lance with
> the length of a 15th century German or Italian lance. Compare the
length of a
> spear used by foot soldiers in the 3rd Crusade with the length of a
Swiss pike.
> Density can be affected either by adding more men, adding more
armor, or both.
>
> It is at the beginning of the Rennaissance that we add to this mix
a counter
> troop type: the sword and buckler man. He operates in loose
formations, with
> little armor, and a weapon with very little reach. How does this
work? It works
> because once you've closed to close quarters, being a large number
of men
> tightly packed can be a disadvantage, having a lot of armor that
makes it
> difficult to move or maneuver can be a disadvantage, and having a
12 foot+
> weapon against an opponent who is 2 feet in front of you is a
decided
> disadvantage. The trick is to get to close quarters. But that is
exactly the
> tactical doctrine practiced by the sword and buclker men: how to
flow, or ease
> into the enemy line without charging full tilt into their pointy
sticks.
>
> I would argue that there are troops and troop types that excelled
at single
> combat, and who followed a tactical doctrine designed to "disorder"
both battle
> lines so that the outcome then depended on prowess at single
combat. I would
> also argue that this phenomenon is an exception during the time
period Warrior
> covers, and thus is very difficult to capture within Warrior's
rules. As
> supporting evidence, I'll note that the troops who most excelled at
this kind
> of disruptive single combat have proved most difficult to simulate
within the
> Warrior system:
> - Vikings in general, berserks in particular (do not make the
traditional
> mistake of assuming that berserker "frenzy" is without plan,
intent, or
> training);
> - Varangians;
> - Almughuvars;
> - the elite among longbowmen (as they appear on either the 100
Year's War
> English list, or their continental counterpart, French Ordannance);
> - Sword and buckler men.
>
> I'll take the argument a step further and suggest that there was a
cavalry
> equivalent of the sword and bucklerman, who used a short bow fired
in a
> straight trajectory at point black range as effectively a hand to
hand weapon,
> with the intent of disrupting cavalry lines into a similar set of
single
> engagements. This is a Middle Asian style of cavalry warfare that
evolves by
> the Rennaissance into the troop type we know as the Hussar, but was
prominent
> in Mongol armies, and probably has its origins as far back as the
Scythians.
> And again, I'd suggest that this kind of cavalry interaction, and
the troops
> associated with it, is something Warrior has had greater than
average
> difficulty in representing.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

lol! Hey the North Vietnamese didn't take baths and this toughened their skin to
that of LSHI (Loose Super Heavy Infantry) but their mortar accuracy was poor so
their missile factor must always deduct 1...

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote: These discussions are fun ...
but probably not particularly useful.
It's all a matter of taste and opinion.

A good example is C-in-C's. Warrior gives a bunch of love to Hannabal
and many people look at him as a paragon of generalship. Other
people, come to the conclusion that he faced some very poor generals
and won some big battles ... and the first time he came across a good
Roman general, he got his ass kicked.

Another is troop types. Alexandrian pikemen are great, clearly highly
successful ... but taken from a different point of view, they were
the backbone of an army that scored most of it's wins against Celts
who were a long ways from home, conscripts, and guys with wicker
shields.

Can't you just imagine Jon's great, great, great, great, great, great
grandson, designing Warrior v9.5, trying to figure out how to make
North Vietnam able to defeat the Americans?



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Kick ass post, Mark. Dead on.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:02:03 +0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rule Question: Swiss recoil
>
>
> kelly wilkinson wrote:
> > Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> > beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> > that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> > maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against
such
> > formations.
>
> I know nothing about Classical/Roman period warfare. Cole might
argue I know
> nothing about Medieval warfar as well, but here goes:
>
> Part of the problem with assessing the Swiss is that we are talking
about a
> troop type that comes into its own at the tail end of our period.
The solution
> to the Swiss lies beyond the scope of Warrior, and involves
tactics, arms, and
> armament that take us into the Rennaissance.
>
> Part of the obvious answer is gunpowder. When the accuracy, rate of
fire, and
> destructiveness of gunpowder weapons evolves substantially beyond
the Medieval
> handgun, then dense formations of troops not armed with a gunpowder
weapon
> themselves start to lose their appeal.
>
> There probably are isolated examples like the one that Cole cites
of high
> morale, highly trained, heavily armored foot standing up to and/or
beating the
> Swiss outright. This interaction, however, is one that Warrior gets
right.
> Consider a unit of Condottieri (SHK) back by seargeants (HK),
dismounted.
> Assume they charge a column of Swiss who are also charging them.
Assume also
> the K have had time to reorder after dismounting. Assume the Swiss
are LHI in
> the front.
>
> The K are 4@4 (front rank) + 2@2 (back rank) = 16.
> The Swiss are 12@1 = 18.
> That's _easily_ within die rolls to change the outcome (remember,
in any given
> combat the odds that both sides will roll even are extremely low).
>
> The other part of the answer is tactical doctrine. The Medieval
assumption, with
> respect to hand-to-hand combat, is that basically two things
matter: having
> greater density than your opponent, and having a longer pointy
stick than your
> opponent. Compare, for example, the length of an 11th century
Norman lance with
> the length of a 15th century German or Italian lance. Compare the
length of a
> spear used by foot soldiers in the 3rd Crusade with the length of a
Swiss pike.
> Density can be affected either by adding more men, adding more
armor, or both.
>
> It is at the beginning of the Rennaissance that we add to this mix
a counter
> troop type: the sword and buckler man. He operates in loose
formations, with
> little armor, and a weapon with very little reach. How does this
work? It works
> because once you've closed to close quarters, being a large number
of men
> tightly packed can be a disadvantage, having a lot of armor that
makes it
> difficult to move or maneuver can be a disadvantage, and having a
12 foot+
> weapon against an opponent who is 2 feet in front of you is a
decided
> disadvantage. The trick is to get to close quarters. But that is
exactly the
> tactical doctrine practiced by the sword and buclker men: how to
flow, or ease
> into the enemy line without charging full tilt into their pointy
sticks.
>
> I would argue that there are troops and troop types that excelled
at single
> combat, and who followed a tactical doctrine designed to "disorder"
both battle
> lines so that the outcome then depended on prowess at single
combat. I would
> also argue that this phenomenon is an exception during the time
period Warrior
> covers, and thus is very difficult to capture within Warrior's
rules. As
> supporting evidence, I'll note that the troops who most excelled at
this kind
> of disruptive single combat have proved most difficult to simulate
within the
> Warrior system:
> - Vikings in general, berserks in particular (do not make the
traditional
> mistake of assuming that berserker "frenzy" is without plan,
intent, or
> training);
> - Varangians;
> - Almughuvars;
> - the elite among longbowmen (as they appear on either the 100
Year's War
> English list, or their continental counterpart, French Ordannance);
> - Sword and buckler men.
>
> I'll take the argument a step further and suggest that there was a
cavalry
> equivalent of the sword and bucklerman, who used a short bow fired
in a
> straight trajectory at point black range as effectively a hand to
hand weapon,
> with the intent of disrupting cavalry lines into a similar set of
single
> engagements. This is a Middle Asian style of cavalry warfare that
evolves by
> the Rennaissance into the troop type we know as the Hussar, but was
prominent
> in Mongol armies, and probably has its origins as far back as the
Scythians.
> And again, I'd suggest that this kind of cavalry interaction, and
the troops
> associated with it, is something Warrior has had greater than
average
> difficulty in representing.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

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

[joncleaves]

<<Can't you just imagine Jon's great, great, great, great, great, great
grandson, designing Warrior v9.5, trying to figure out how to make
North Vietnam able to defeat the Americans?>>

It would be my great, great, great, great, great, great, granddaughter. And she
wouldn't need to work very hard - they *did* defeat the Americans.
Her larger challenge would be to explain why North Vietnamese beat Americans to
a Texan with a lot invested in an American army from another game....

Jon


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

[Derek Downs]

Geoff, Good luck complaining about all the free things a particular army gets.

Derekcus
I couldn't agree more. In fact when using the Swiss and one of my Pike
blocks is shaken but the 2hct men come through I always count it as
disordered. There is no way a shaken unit can have anyone as steady.
As I said in my original post, I am also against them counting steady
when the rest of the unit is disordered. If I am slack enough to let my
units get shot for 3cpf then I should take the consequences. It is also
not much fun in a game when your opponent ( understandably ) is cheesed
off that he managed to push you back disordered but is then facing a
beating.
I agree that the Swiss should be tough when steady so the list rules
are required. No troops should ever get a benefit when they have lost
cohesion though.


Cheers.........Geoff


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

[Greg Regets]

> Her larger challenge would be to explain why North Vietnamese beat
Americans to a Texan with a lot invested in an American army from
another game....
>

I'm sure she would deflect that by asking for 2,000 hours of play
testing, for the obvious. ;-)

I couldn't agree more. In fact when using the Swiss and one of my Pike
blocks is shaken but the 2hct men come through I always count it as
disordered. There is no way a shaken unit can have anyone as steady.
As I said in my original post, I am also against them counting steady
when the rest of the unit is disordered. If I am slack enough to let my
units get shot for 3cpf then I should take the consequences. It is also
not much fun in a game when your opponent ( understandably ) is cheesed
off that he managed to push you back disordered but is then facing a
beating.
I agree that the Swiss should be tough when steady so the list rules
are required. No troops should ever get a benefit when they have lost
cohesion though.


Cheers.........Geoff

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scsabrecoach" <scsabrecoach@y...>
wrote:
>
> Greetings Ed,
> I have a huge issue with the fact a shaken unit can ever melee
steady and shieled. Once you loose cohession you should loose your
special fighting abilities.
>

Unusually with Geoff's post he is complaining that the Swiss list
rules are too good - and he is a mad player of the Swiss - he is
trying to down his own army not someone elses.

It is the Japanese I reckon are the biggest list scam in the game

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@a... wrote:
>
> Geoff, Good luck complaining about all the free things a
particular army gets.
>
> Derekcus
> I couldn't agree more. In fact when using the Swiss and one of my
Pike
> blocks is shaken but the 2hct men come through I always count it
as
> disordered. There is no way a shaken unit can have anyone as
steady.
> As I said in my original post, I am also against them counting
steady
> when the rest of the unit is disordered. If I am slack enough to
let my
> units get shot for 3cpf then I should take the consequences. It is
also
> not much fun in a game when your opponent ( understandably ) is
cheesed
> off that he managed to push you back disordered but is then facing
a
> beating.
> I agree that the Swiss should be tough when steady so the list
rules
> are required. No troops should ever get a benefit when they have
lost
> cohesion though.
>
>
> Cheers.........Geoff
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Greetings Adrian,
I will bite, what is the scam regarding the japanese list?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams" <fredthebaddy@h...>
wrote:
>
> Unusually with Geoff's post he is complaining that the Swiss list
> rules are too good - and he is a mad player of the Swiss - he is
> trying to down his own army not someone elses.
>
> It is the Japanese I reckon are the biggest list scam in the game
>
> ANW
>

[Tim Grimmett]

In Warrior terms this means they pass their waver, which they should do 5/6
times.

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote: Sigh...must read before hitting
send..

Anways, the Swiss were some of the premier heavy
Infantry of the day, and did have a reputation for
withstanding bowfire, right?

Todd (the Hasty)...




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

[Todd Schneider]

That same argument could be made for every unit out
there that has the "3cpf" rule as well...all they have
to do is become Regular (or Irr) B and there would be
no need for the rule.

Todd

--- Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...> wrote:

> In Warrior terms this means they pass their waver,
> which they should do 5/6 times.
>
> Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
> Sigh...must read before hitting send..
>
> Anways, the Swiss were some of the premier heavy
> Infantry of the day, and did have a reputation for
> withstanding bowfire, right?
>
> Todd (the Hasty)...
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!
> Shopping
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com