Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 5:25:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Jon ...
>
> Oh gawd ... I hate to even post this on a Friday, but are you sure about the
> answer you gave below? It seems to contradict 5.52.

I am quite positive, in fact the example of multiple wavers in 5.52 is very
similar. Those are two DIFFERENT causes of wavers from the same action - which
causes multiple tests.

This is different than several instances of the SAME cause (multiple reasons for
becoming disordered from the same combat) which I know you guys continue to have
trouble grasping.

Original Q+A below:
> **********
>
> Q6. (I am sorry to do this after the recent combat disorder but unless I have
> specifically asked about this situation I know there will be still be issues

>
> A skirmishing body is currently disordered and is prep shot for 3CPF. It
cannot
> recall. Does it take two waver tests ? one for (SECOND DISORDER 5.52) and one
> for at least 2CPF from Prep shooting and not following the
> listed actions?
>
> Yep.
>
> **********

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 7:23:05 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> You know, I will give you the credit, BUT, since you have to go after the
> target/stay in the charge path and LC can't interpenetrate much of anything
>
> it is VERY difficult to do this. More likely (and still damned rare) is
> when
> you charge eavding LI that uncover something.
>
> In both cases, 2 or 3 figs shooting typically isn't worth the shooting
> fatigue.
>
> But heck, IF you end up this way and IF there is a target worth shooting
> with
> a couple figs and IF you remember this one - go for it....
>
> Probably happens in every game in texas....lol
>
> Jon
>

This actually occurred at the big game (3200 pts/ side) @ Twistercon.

A body of 16 LHI archers (B, Sh) was behind the flank of some Numidian LC.
The two bodies' front edges were virtually perpindicular to each other.
Beyond the LC was a body of HC who were lining up to charge a body of
legionairres in the flank. The LC was literally placed as a screen between
the HC and LHI archers. The archers assumed that they could shoot the LC off
and still have a support shot at the HC as they contacted the legionairres'
flank. Such an arrangement would literally have the archers facing the HC's
ass once the flank charge went off.

The LC opted to take the waiver test, post prep shot rather than recall in
order to protect their HC friendlies' arses. So Don charged the LC during
the charge phase. NO point in having routing LC in one's rear, so the
Numidians Vamosed- right quick.

This left the archers who charged in a straight line/ perpendicular to the
route of evade the Numidians took (directly to their rear). The archers were
now 80 paces closer to the flank charge and legitimately able to shoot the
entire back rank into the HC. The net minuses resulted in the HC doing no
damage to the legionairre and since they were armed with Jls- just dead meat
the following bound.

Hadn't seen it before, was greatly distressed that he was going to get such a
lucious support shot literally into the ass of the HC and after thorough
investigation found it to be "legal". I question the likelihood of such an
event, but it most definitely happened and most definitely is legal per the
rules.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 11:52:02 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> I question the likelihood of such an
> event, but it most definitely happened and most definitely is legal per the
>
> rules.
>

Well, I am sure somewhere archers shot cavalry charging a group of troops
friendly to the archers, which is all this is. We might be making too much
of the exact sequence of the bound and not looking at the bigger picture of
what is being represented in this swirling and confused combat.

More importantly, when we had a choice of whether to zig or zag on a rules
issue and no specific historical evidence one way or another on which to base
the choice, we chose to reward aggressive play and punish 'surrounded' bodies
as history has shown that the offense is *typically* the decisive form of
combat and that commanders are quite often rewarded for maneuvering to the
flank and rear of the enemy.

I have absolutely NO issue with the action as you described it and feel very
good about our choices there.

Jon


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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Thanks for the prompt response. And I only owe 1 beer for a "not
completely correct" ruling -which has got to be good :)

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 02:03 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:
<snip>

> > Q4. Can a charging body  otherwise able to support shoot (eg rear
> rank
> > of bow) “support shoot” a body that is not the target of their
> charge?
>
> Technically yes.  This is 'almost' impossible and I have yet to see
> it. 
> Extra credit for an example...
>

Belated attempt at extra credit
We had a unit of 8E (4E wide) LMI Bowmen faced off directly E for E
against a unit 2E LC (1E wide) at 90 paces and a unit of 6E (3E
wide)LMI Bowmen at 160paces. The 8E LMI Bowmen unit charged the LC.
The LC rolled up on the evade and added. The LMI Bowmen rolled down on
the chase leaving them at 80 and directly in front of the enemy LMI
Bowmen.

> >
> > Q10.  A unit is positioned next to the table edge in such a way that
> it
> > will not allow a unit charging it (frontally) to have room to pivot,
> > fit, line-up etc. Do we treat a table edge as “other bodies or
> terrain
> > features” in this case ?
>
> Hmmm, how about a diagram?  I'd have to see what is on the other side
> of the
> body that is preventing the line up.
>



In the "diagram" below
TE represents the table edge
The Unit X is a 2E wide unit of LMI.
The Unit M represents a unit of MI friendly to unit X.
Unit X is slightly (lets say 5mm) closer to unit A than unit M is
The gap between the Table edge and unit M is less than 2E wide
The Unit attempting the charge (A) is a 2E wide unit of EHK.

TE MMM
TE X MMM
TE XMMM

TE AA
TE AA

Therefore when the charging unit (A) attempts to pivot, line-up and fit
etc to the front faces of X it will end up "off table".


I hope this is clearer. If I still haven't given you enough to work
out what I am trying to say let me know and I'll try something with
the Powerpoint items.

Cheers,

Greg Preston.

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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,
On Sunday, May 11, 2003, at 12:57 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/10/2003 21:23:39 Central Daylight Time,
> edgdp@... writes:
>
> > I hope this is clearer.  If I still haven't given you enough to work
> > out what I am trying to say let me know and  I'll try something with
> > the Powerpoint items.
> >
>
> No, that's fine.  If A can't pivot/line up then X does.  If X can't
> either
> then neither has to.
>
> M is what is preventing the pivoting and lining up.
>

Thanks again.

Greg P.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 11:59:17 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> Well, I am sure somewhere archers shot cavalry charging a group of troops
> friendly to the archers, which is all this is. We might be making too much
>
> of the exact sequence of the bound and not looking at the bigger picture of
>
> what is being represented in this swirling and confused combat.
>
It is important that you understand that I am not complaining about this
situation,but rather what this rule allows to take place, that should not be
allowed.

Totally understand your rationale about units that get themselves surrounded
or boxed in. But this situation is a little bit more and requires a fair
amount of rationalization to simplify it so.
First the archers could not see the HC they ended up shooting at post charge,
prior to their charge.
Second, there is a flaw with the time window within our rules set as to when
the support shots are being fired. Are they being fired as the unit is being
charged or is charging? Or are they being fired after the unit has completed
its charge and or been charged?

If the support shooters are shooting as they charge or are being charged,
then it makes sense that those same shooters could take part in the
subsequent hth. If however, they are shooting at their opponent upon
contact, ie at the end of the charge then it is questionable how they could
take part in both hth and still get multiple volleys off as represented by
the effect of support shooting. So first, before cavalierly simplifying the
situation to archers firing at horse charging friendlies we would need to
more closely define the time frame in which support shooting takes place. At
least in theory the charges that take place in a given phase are
simultaneous- right?

If charges are all simultanous, and support shooting takes place during the
charge, then how is it legal or historically accurate to allow support shots
to take place at targets that are not available until after the charge is
completed? The phase in which support shooting is supposed to be taking
place is over.

I'm not doing a good job describing this. Lets try this example.
First, the effects of a charging HC L,B, sh unit on a target account for
multiple volleys from the back rank correct? In essence the HC unit charging
a LC unit and shooting 3@4 (because the LC unit was not contacted and by
evading is likely shieldless); those casualties on the LC unit are not from a
single volley, but rather a series of volleys during the duration of the
charge. Is this not accurate?

So, Now that same HC unit charges from one side of a hill and with his full
charge movement just barely crests the hill, but on the other side finds a
juicier target, a shieldless LMI unit whose flank is exposed. The HC does
not have the movement to contact the new LMI target but does end movement at
80 paces or less. The LC evade took the LC beyond the LMI and so the LMI is
the target priority. The HC now shoots 3@5 against the LMI unit and gets the
same effective firepower for what can only amount to a 1. snap shot and 2.
can only be a single volley as the entire phase was spent charging up hill
and therfore not loosing arrows at the new target. A time warp effect; same
fire power in a 1/160th of the time. This is exactly parallel with allowing
a unit to fire at an uncovered target, rather than its charge target at the
end of a charge phase; which is really no different than allowing a unit to
shoot at a different target than it is charging- Even if contact is made.
Hardly seems realistic; mind you I say seems as I cannot afford a time
machine just yet. Although I would be very curious to see a historical
account of such refined fire control on a charging unit even with today's
armies.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 19:24:51 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> It is important that you understand that I am not complaining about this
> situation,but rather what this rule allows to take place, that should not
> be
> allowed.
>
> Totally understand your rationale about units that get themselves
> surrounded
> or boxed in.

Givent eh length and content of your mail, I am not so sure you do...lol

But this situation is a little bit more and requires a fair >
> amount of rationalization to simplify it so.
> First the archers could not see the HC they ended up shooting at post
> charge,
> prior to their charge.


It is not a requirement that a body conducting support shooting see the
target prior to the charge phase. They have to be able to see the target in
the support shooting phase. Using your logic, units conducting prep shooting
would have to be able to (predict and) see their targets before the movement
phases. Why?

> Second, there is a flaw with the time window within our rules set as to when
>
> the support shots are being fired.


Which is what, exactly? This statement isn't followed with a reason, it is
followed by questions....

Are they being fired as the unit is being >
> charged or is charging? Or are they being fired after the unit has
> completed
> its charge and or been charged?

We choose in Warrior #2 as otherwise support shooting would have to occur in
the charge phase - which isn't how the game engine works. It would also be a
design nightmare, not to mention having to rework the entire hth system,
which combines support and hth.

>
> So first, before cavalierly simplifying the
> situation to archers firing at horse charging friendlies we would need to
> more closely define the time frame in which support shooting takes place.


It would not be cavalier, since that is an excellent comparison, actually.



At > least in theory the charges that take place in a given phase are
> simultaneous- right?
>

In real life, yes.

> If charges are all simultanous, and support shooting takes place during the
> charge, then how is it legal or historically accurate to allow support
> shots
> to take place at targets that are not available until after the charge is
> completed? The phase in which support shooting is supposed to be taking
> place is over.

They are simultaneous. But support shooting does not take place in the
charge phase, (and doesn't in TOG either), so....

>
> I'm not doing a good job describing this.

Really? ;)

Lets try this example.>
> First, the effects of a charging HC L,B, sh unit on a target account for
> multiple volleys from the back rank correct? In essence the HC unit
> charging
> a LC unit and shooting 3@4 (because the LC unit was not contacted and by
> evading is likely shieldless); those casualties on the LC unit are not from
> a
> single volley, but rather a series of volleys during the duration of the
> charge. Is this not accurate?

Could be either.

>
> So, Now that same HC unit charges from one side of a hill and with his full
>
> charge movement just barely crests the hill, but on the other side finds a
> juicier target, a shieldless LMI unit whose flank is exposed. The HC does
> not have the movement to contact the new LMI target but does end movement
> at
> 80 paces or less.

Ah, I see. To you some units have more 'shooting time' than others. Warrior
does not take that into account in an exactly simulative way. But if you
want to write that x-rule, man I will second guess the shit out of it for
you. I mean - fair is fair, right? lol

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 21:23:39 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> I hope this is clearer. If I still haven't given you enough to work
> out what I am trying to say let me know and I'll try something with
> the Powerpoint items.
>

No, that's fine. If A can't pivot/line up then X does. If X can't either
then neither has to.

M is what is preventing the pivoting and lining up.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 7:39:01 PM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> Ah, I see. To you some units have more 'shooting time' than others.
> Warrior
> does not take that into account in an exactly simulative way. But if you
> want to write that x-rule, man I will second guess the shit out of it for
> you. I mean - fair is fair, right? lol
>

What?

A bow is put in the same category as a composite bow in Warrior. A simple
bamboo crossbow is put in the same category as an arquebus. Both you and
Scott have written that this is because in a given time frame the results
would be the same, ie it takes less energy to fire a bow than a composite bow
so more arrows could be released in a given phase, hence the similar
categorization. Same with the multiple levels of crossbow. You've written
words to this effect back in the days when others were arguing for additional
weapon categories. In essence fire effects were the accumulation of any
given weapon over the span of the phase. Now you're claiming that a single
volley can have the same effect as the unit firing over the length of that
phase?

Logically, this is unsupportable. If support fire amounts to the capability
of units who charge being able to shoot at other than their charge targets
and furthermore not taking place during the actual charge but rather as an
additional event at the end of the charge and prior to hth then the logical
question arises why can't all units in range get another shot off?

If support shooting is not simulating the effects of weapons being shot at
the charger's target (or obviously at a charger by a defender standing to
receive) as a unit is charging, but rather a second round of shooting after
charging is complete then why are chargers the only ones given the devine
right to shoot again?

If support shooting takes place after the charge then why are only the back
rank of chargers eligible to shoot? This rule makes sense if support
shooting is taking place during the charge because presumably the front
rankers are girding themselves for the inevitable contact, but if support
shooting is an event that immediately follows the charge and immediately
proceeds the hth, then there is no logical reason that the front rankers
could not shoot as well (particularly if contact is not made).

My points here, Jon, are not to second guess you but rather to point out that
I think that you lost your focus in the writing of this particular rule and
are now rationalizing in an effort to defend it rather than consider the fact
that what is being created hardly seems historically accurate. Support
shooting by the charger in TOG, as it was explained to me, was meant to
simulate the Parthian tactic. What we have now provides way too much
latitude to a body of men chasing one enemy and having the presence of mind
to shoot at another, and if this is designed to be a simulation then add
simultaneously to the end of that statement.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/11/2003 01:09:30 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> My points here, Jon, are not to second guess you but rather to point out
> that
> I think that you lost your focus in the writing of this particular rule

Well, I completely disagree with everything you said, but you win. You have
sapped me of the energy required to continue with this thread. I read and
reread what you wrote three times trying to best support your comments with
an answer and at the end of that process I wasn't even sure we were talking
about the same game. I began, as I normally do, to cut in my answers and
comments and found that in every case I was either disagreeing with your
version of something you think I said or giving a class on the decisions a
game designer needs to make in a non-real-time game in order to best fit
discrete phases to a continuous and flowing action. Heck, Chris, we don't
even agree on what support shooting is supposed to represent, where are we
going to find common ground for a discussion?

The bottom line is that nothing you have said has convinced me that a
clarification is in order, so I am going to let this one go.

Buy me a beer at HCon and try again if you like.

I'd also ask you to bring future such discussions directly to me offline.
Thanks.

Jon


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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Some more rules questions from down under. I did a trawl through the
past posts and couldn’t find responses to these- sorry if they have
already been answered.

Q1. Unit X is a mixed unit of front rank 1 el SHC, second rank 1 el
EHC.

The unit charges an enemy unit impetuously.

There was some discussion here as to the factor that the elements got.

Do
(a) the different ranks get the different impetuous factors
(ie SHC +1 close charging impetuously, and the EHC +2 loose charging
impetuously),
or (b) both elements get the same factor (if so which?)

Q2.
If the above unit – X- forces its opponents to recoil,
(a) can the unit expand out in the follow-up (as the element doing the
expanding is loose)
OR
(b) is it prevented (as the body contains close)

Q3
An exhausted LC unit is making an evade move. The unit rolls a
potential –add- for the variable component of its move.
Does the term in the movement section – Maximum if exhausted- refer to
(a) total movement- ie the LC cannot move more than 80 paces
OR
(b) the maximum movement prior to the variable effect (ie the LC could
move more than 80 paces if –adding)

Q4.

Unit (A) of LI is 5El wide. In bound 3, the unit is in combat on a 2E
frontage with a unit of LMI (X).

XX
AAAAA

The result of the combat is a –stand-.

In bound 4, The two elements of LI (in unit A) facing the LMI are
replaced in combat by a friendly unit of HK (unitB). The light
infantry(unit A) are also charged on their exposed frontage by a unit
of LI (Z).
Thus the position at the end of charges in bound 4 is:

XXZZZ
BBAAA
AA

Unit A routs unit Z on contact.

Unit A, must now Pursue (as per 11.222- Irregulars must pursue at least
twice) and Recall (as per 6.36- for having being replaced in combat).
Which of these takes precedence ?

Q5. (sorry this one is a bit complex to describe. If you don’t get
what I am on about let be know and I’ll have a go with the Powerpoint
elements).

A unit 3E wide is routed. (Unit X)

The routing unit has an irregular body (Unit Z) 1E wide directly behind
its centre Element, and other units (A and B) slightly to the side of
the routing unit and level with unit Z (The G below represents a gap
greater than 1E and less than 2E wide, the S empty space)

SSXXXSS
AGZGB

Both of the –flank- elements of the routing body (X) may make a full
rout move away from the enemy unit which routed them. The central
element of the routing unit would contact a friendly body (Z) which is
not normally able to be interpenetrated.
As per 6.53 Combat results can be made through any gap greater than one
element wide and the two element gap restriction for rout moves only
applies to diverting off the rout path.
The rout path described in 6.32 Rout Moves is a single line from the
centre of the routing unit. Is the unit(Z), if irregular, swept away ?

The interesting issue here for me is that the rout path is a single
line where as “The Charge path” for example is a zone as wide as the
charging body. The middle element has deviated off the single line and
therefore needs to follow the instructions for “rout path blocked by
friendly bodies. Yet if the rout path was as wide as the routing body
it would seem to be able to drop back elements to pass the gap. Your
thoughts.

Thanks in advance,

Greg Preston.



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/16/2004 11:46:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> Q1. Unit X is a mixed unit of front rank 1 el SHC, second rank 1 el
> EHC.
>
> The unit charges an enemy unit impetuously.
>
> There was some discussion here as to the factor that the elements got.
>
> Do
> (a) the different ranks get the different impetuous factors
> (ie SHC +1 close charging impetuously, and the EHC +2 loose charging
> impetuously),
> or (b) both elements get the same factor (if so which?)>>

a)

>
> Q2.
> If the above unit – X- forces its opponents to recoil,
> (a) can the unit expand out in the follow-up (as the element doing the
> expanding is loose)
> OR
> (b) is it prevented (as the body contains close)>>

b)

>
> Q3
> An exhausted LC unit is making an evade move. The unit rolls a
> potential –add- for the variable component of its move.
> Does the term in the movement section – Maximum if exhausted- refer to
> (a) total movement- ie the LC cannot move more than 80 paces
> OR
> (b) the maximum movement prior to the variable effect (ie the LC could
> move more than 80 paces if –adding)>>

b)

>
> Q4.
>
> Unit (A) of LI is 5El wide. In bound 3, the unit is in combat on a 2E
> frontage with a unit of LMI (X).
>
> XX
> AAAAA
>
> The result of the combat is a –stand-.
>
> In bound 4, The two elements of LI (in unit A) facing the LMI are
> replaced in combat by a friendly unit of HK (unitB). The light
> infantry(unit A) are also charged on their exposed frontage by a unit
> of LI (Z).
> Thus the position at the end of charges in bound 4 is:
>
> XXZZZ
> BBAAA
> AA
>
> Unit A routs unit Z on contact.
>
> Unit A, must now Pursue (as per 11.222- Irregulars must pursue at least
> twice) and Recall (as per 6.36- for having being replaced in combat).
> Which of these takes precedence ?>>

Recall.

>
> Q5. (sorry this one is a bit complex to describe. If you don’t get
> what I am on about let be know and I’ll have a go with the Powerpoint
> elements).
>
> A unit 3E wide is routed. (Unit X)
>
> The routing unit has an irregular body (Unit Z) 1E wide directly behind
> its centre Element, and other units (A and B) slightly to the side of
> the routing unit and level with unit Z (The G below represents a gap
> greater than 1E and less than 2E wide, the S empty space)
>
> SSXXXSS
> AGZGB>>

Too hard without a full diagram. I'd need to know what is off in the direction
of the SS's. If there is a 2E space out there, XXX could rout in that
direction.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 12:29:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> there is no 2E space in any direction for the routing unit
> to go
> through.>>

Then it routs away from the bodies that broke it and bursts through whatever is
in its path.

Jon

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Thanks for the speedy reply,


> >
> > Q5. (sorry this one is a bit complex to describe.  If you don’t get
> > what I am on about let be know and I’ll have a go with the Powerpoint
> > elements).
> >
> > A unit 3E wide is routed. (Unit X)
> >
> > The routing unit has an irregular body (Unit Z) 1E wide directly
> behind
> > its centre Element, and other units (A and B) slightly to the side of
> > the routing unit and level with unit Z (The G below represents a gap
> > greater than 1E and less than 2E wide, the S empty space)
> >
> > SSXXXSS
> > AGZGB>>
>
> Too hard without a full diagram.  I'd need to know what is off in the
> direction of the SS's.  If there is a 2E space out there, XXX could
> rout in that direction.
>


there is no 2E space in any direction for the routing unit to go
through.


The interesting issue here for me is that the rout path is a single
line where as “The Charge path” for example is a zone as wide as the
charging body. The middle element has deviated off the single line and
therefore needs to follow the instructions for “rout path blocked by
friendly bodies. Yet if the rout path was as wide as the routing body
it would seem to be able to drop back elements to pass the gap. Your
thoughts.


Greg P.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 12:29:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> Yet if the rout path was as wide as the routing body
> it would seem to be able to drop back elements to pass the
> gap. Your
> thoughts.>>

Ok, I might be missing something here in your question, so I am adding some
info.
The ability to 'drop back' is available to routers like it is to other units.
But the body must move along the rout path unless diverting to a 2E wide gap.
Even if diverting, the line must have an element moving along it, once that line
is established. So, the 'middle' of the body must be moving along the rout
path. Other elements may drop back if 6.53 makes that possible - whether it
diverted or not.

J