Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

CHeck out the messages in the 4400 range, and the
1700's, those dealt with stirrups...

>Actually, I can no longer find my original tome on stirrups in the yahoogroup
archive. If anybody has this email, I'd appreciate it if you'd forward it to me
since I no longer have it.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/4/2003 2:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ds.sullivan@... writes:

> > A close look at the combat table will reveal that the
> above is already
> > accounted for...
>
> Is it?>>

Yes, it is.

Forget what you (and I) know about 5th ed, 6th ed, etc, for a moment and look at
it from the viewpoint I had in the summer of 2000 deciding what I needed/wanted
to keep of the combat table. I found that the matchups of what L does
offensively with respect to what the various K columns do defensively set the K
apart from other types of cav in just the right way without a modification for
couching and fighting style.

K reflects more than armor, as many weapon categories, training levels and troop
types reflect more than just the name by which they are called. For example,
there are troops classed as LC that are physically in armor historically, but
they are rated LC because of what they do and how they fight.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Sorry Scott ...

I would sent this to you, but bringing up all these issues that have
already been decided is very negative and sarcastic, and destructive
to the new players! ~HUGE GRIN~

g

P.S. I have it on my other PC ... I will send it to you tomorrow.




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> CHeck out the messages in the 4400 range, and the
> 1700's, those dealt with stirrups...
>
> >Actually, I can no longer find my original tome on stirrups in the
yahoogroup archive. If anybody has this email, I'd appreciate it if
you'd forward it to me since I no longer have it.
>
> scott

hi,

What you say about the Spanish is true in general but if i remember
my account of the Numantine war correctly (sorry dont have the book
in front of me) the Romans refused to engage the Celtiberians in
pitched battle (despite hugely outnumbering them) and turned the
whole thing in to a slow large scale seige.

martin

[scott holder]

The "new" WRG Spanish list is very competitive in and outside of period and that
won't change with the advent of "improved Romans".

-----Original Message-----
From: martin williams [mailto:martymagnificent@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:08 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: 1HCW


hi,

What you say about the Spanish is true in general but if i remember
my account of the Numantine war correctly (sorry dont have the book
in front of me) the Romans refused to engage the Celtiberians in
pitched battle (despite hugely outnumbering them) and turned the
whole thing in to a slow large scale seige.

martin



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/

Hi,

Again i'm not so sure about this. Unless im mistaken (dont have my
book handy) legions generally just survive against this troops type
(on even rolls wouldnt a three element frontage fight result in about
140 for the wild and woolies and about 72 for the Romans- close but
no cigar)and do just fine in the long fight (with or without 1hcw).
Nor am i necessarily sure the risk involved in this fight for the
romans is a problem. I remember one writer on these marvellous
Spanish fellows talking about how whilst in their wedge formations
the Celtiberians destroyed whatever they hurled themselves at, or
words to that effect. Nor would i consider these troops a problem
from a game balance point of view They exist in an army that is
fundamentally unbalanced and vulnerable. Compare this to alumghavars
who generally get placed in armies with knights of their own to
protect them from the cavalry that are the nemesis of these sought of
troops. Hope my calculations on the combat are correct. If not please
feel free to point this out

martin

[Kelly Wilkinson]

lol! Now your gonna get it! Not the couched lance/stirrup argument! Get thee
behind me oh Satan of past arguments that cause pain to the rules lawyers!

kelly "plain old Ho"

David Sullivan <ds.sullivan@...> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 01:37 PM, martin williams wrote:
> I have to admit i have nagging doubts about this weapon category in
> general. I'm not sure it wasnt properly covered by 1sa in the first
> place. It just seems to me that expanding our weapon categories is a
> slippery slope indeed. After all 2hcw includes stone clubs and
> Katanas, Lance includes "proper" (couched) lance as well as sarrisa,
> etc, etc. It would also seem a potential problem to start
> categorising weapons not by what they were but by how good people
> were with them. I can appreciate it is often extremely difficult to
> categorise weapons already, surely this would make it an even more
> subjective,disputable and difficult process. What do other people
> think on this one?


I welcome the addition of 1HCW as a category for troops whose primary
weapon was a sword or similar weapon. Its benefit is to make troops so
armed a little better that worst. I've always thought it odd in WRG
that Roman legionarii were so good in their first bound because of the
HTW, but degraded on subsequent bounds to a category they shared with
goatherds using sharpened sticks.

The last new weapon category that I recall was JLS that came in with
6th edition some 20 years ago. I think JLS turned out OK. Maybe it's
time to add another new weapon so that twenty years from now our
children or grandchildren can refer to it when they argue that a new
category should be added for kontos used overhead by a mounted warrior
without stirrups as distinct from a lance that is couched under one arm
by a mounted warrior using stirrups.


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

cncbump@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/2003 11:16:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

> Actually it is not 1hcw that bothers me. It is the fact that Impetuous
Irregular foot armed with HTW, JLS, Sh always end up routing Reg A/B/C/D Roman
foot and Pike armed foot on an even die roll. This is what scares me! This is in
my opinion a HUGE hole in 7th edition and Warrior that I hope gets
> fixed.

Chris wrote--Well since so few troops are armed as such I will assume that you
are grouping 2HCW in with HTW so that your argument carries more examples for
support.
Then I disagree. The Spanish are either armed with Jls or Htw. Jls in the
Hutchby and Clark list and HTW in the 6th edition wrg books. H&C allows up to
1/2 of each Spanish unit to then get HTW, so obviously for most impact that half
will be the front rank but not the entire unit.
******************************************************

Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and half the
elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo. These troops can be
irregular B's and the chance of them rolling down is dramatically reduced. The
Romans need to roll up 1 just to survive. Here's how it works. The 3 element
unit of Nasty Celtiberians crash in at a column with 5 @ +9=48 fatigue points
while the standard Polybian/Marian/Early Imperial Romans are 6 @ +5=24. Assuming
the Romans are in a 16 figure block, the Romans will suck up 48 fatigue points
(3CPF) and is doubled in hand to hand which equals a rout. now the Celtiberian
unit costs 67 points (unless I'm wrong) while a Reg B HTW,Sh Roman unit runs
about 122. Hmmm... My point is that the value is all hosed up, hence the hole in
Warrior where Celt-Iberians are concerned. By the way, this is standard fare for
Spanish at Historicon as I had it done to me and have played Spanish myself.

**********************************************************


[Chris wrote--So assuming a typical Roman unit is 4 elements 2x2 The Spanish
player charging him will get a 6@9 and 3@6 which if I can recall correctly (been
some months since we've been able to play) is 48+15 or 63 casualties give or
take. For the sake of argument we will say 64 equalling a nice 4 cpf's on the
Roman unit. The roman unit standing to receive dishes out 12@5 equaling 48. If
the Spanish unit is only 4 elements then he will be tired and disordered in
subsequent bounds as he follows up the Roman unit. Obviously a larger Spanish
or other unit will take fewer cpf's but is also susceptible to being attacked on
those elements overlapping the Roman unit's. If that Roman unit is a post
Severan unit than he is also carrying Jls and potentially darts. This
effectively decreases the Spanish or other's attack by 1 column (6@8 + 3@5
equaling 45+12 or 57) and increases the Roman output to 12@6 or 60 virtually
ensuring the Spanish or other unit is tired and disordered, possibly
recoiling and being very sorry in subsequent bounds.]

[Chris wrote]It gets even worse for those armed with 2HCW, Jls, sh types
(Thracian, Dacian types) because they are shieldless in subsequent bounds and
most often if armed such are medium infantry.

Pike is only an even die roll if it is 4 elements deep when charging the Roman 2
element deep foot. And if that's the case the Roman player has a decided
advantage in subsequent bounds, at least from a cost per element frontage
perspective. Besides which, historically Pike matched up well against Roman
foot when they faced each other frontally. Roman flexibilty/ maneuverablity
typically won the day.

*******************************************************

Kelly*** See my point retort above.
*******************************************************
Chris wrote---Don't even bring up the issue of Moogs. Can only compare
historical or at least same time frame opponents in order to decide if the
system works.

*******************************************************

Kelly***So, what about Swiss pike verses Moogs that die unless they roll up 2
and they still get hosed? How can this be a historical result? Or for that
matter most any close order foot will die against Moogs.

*******************************************************

Finally, if my good friend Don proclaims on this site that we are going to like
the new Roman rules, then I can only assume that the fix is in.
Chris

********************************************************

*** My good friend, Chris, Don't assume anything when it comes to a Phil Barker
game even if it is being tinkered on by FHE, Or maybe I should say ESPECIALLY
when it's being tinkered with! You know where ASSuMe gets you! To be
honest, I'm perhaps more concerned if the Spanish list will continue to be like
the Hutchby and Clark abortion!

kelly


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

It seems interesting that a primarily Hoplite army such as the early
Carthaginians were able to carve out such a big chunk of Spain with their
infantry routing everywhere against the invincible Spanish from Hutchby and
Clark. Somehow I think that Close order LTS,Sh should perform better. I already
talked about the abortion that happens to Romans and Pikes. Let's have a look at
LTS, Sh vs Celt Iberians from Hutchby and Clark... Reg/Ireg Close order Foot
armed with LTS, Sh (16 figure unit) is impetuously Charged by Celt Iberians in
Loose order armed with HTW,JLS, Sh (9 figure unit). The Celt Iberians are once
again formed up in a 3 element column and crash in as usual at 5 figures @ + 9 =
48 fatigue points. The LTS, Sh ( We'll call these poor slobs, "The Spartans")
fight 6 figures @ + 3 = 15 fatigue for their enemies. The Celt Iberians dish out
3 CPF and more than double the "Spartans" in hand to hand combat which results
in the Spartans returning home on their shields! IS ANY OF
THIS SINKING IN?????????!!!!!?? Just to SURVIVE, the "Spartans" have to roll up
2! Even if they do their best and roll up 3 (or if they are irregular up 4) they
will always lose to an even (or down 1 result as the Celt Iberians are "B"
class!) die roll from the barbarian trash. How can any rules system justify such
a result???? Spartans being trashed by Garbage foot! This is just too painful.

kelly

martin williams <martymagnificent@...> wrote:
Hi,

Again i'm not so sure about this. Unless im mistaken (dont have my
book handy) legions generally just survive against this troops type
(on even rolls wouldnt a three element frontage fight result in about
140 for the wild and woolies and about 72 for the Romans- close but
no cigar)and do just fine in the long fight (with or without 1hcw).
Nor am i necessarily sure the risk involved in this fight for the
romans is a problem. I remember one writer on these marvellous
Spanish fellows talking about how whilst in their wedge formations
the Celtiberians destroyed whatever they hurled themselves at, or
words to that effect. Nor would i consider these troops a problem
from a game balance point of view They exist in an army that is
fundamentally unbalanced and vulnerable. Compare this to alumghavars
who generally get placed in armies with knights of their own to
protect them from the cavalry that are the nemesis of these sought of
troops. Hope my calculations on the combat are correct. If not please
feel free to point this out

martin


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Don Coon]

> Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and half the
elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo.

Where do you get the data that you can round up? 1/2 is 1/2 and if you buy
only 3E, then only 1E can have the option. You can not go over 1/2 as far
as I know.

Don

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Well said. So just out of curiosity I'm wondering how Romans will do head to
head with Phalangites? Did they ever beat Phalangites head to head? Or did they
use maneuver to get around on their lumbering flanks? My readings have been the
latter rather than the former. It seems to me that no number of Legionaries
replacing each other in combat should be able to budge a Phalangite unit unless
the Romans were to somehow disorder their foes or get around on their flanks. I
realize that this is a rock, paper, scissors exercise where the Pike army needs
to bring Lancer cav to beat on the Roman foot, but then with the list rule as it
is in Fast Warrior, the Pike Army is better off not bringing more pikes than the
minimum against foes that they always beat according to Livy from the front.
Kelly "Up too dang early HO"

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
Here's a bit of design philosophy when it comes to FHE and Romans. Every game
engine that originated with Phil Barker makes Roman legionaries of the Polybian
thru Severan era somewhat lackluster. And I'm being kind in that
characterization. Every one of his game engines dating back to 5th Edition.
Every game engine that I've read or played since 1976 that has not originated
with Phil, the same Romans are treated entirely differently. There's a reason
you see plenty of EIR armies in WAB for example. Moreover, the "popular
wargaming perception" vis a vis Romans usually involves statements like "well,
if they conquored so much, why do their armies stink up the joint?"

Now, I am the last one to bow to "popular wargaming perception" when it comes to
army list development (peruse back thru this e-group and look at my design
comments on Vikings as an example). But, it's quite clear when you do a
systematic review of Roman tactical styles, battlefield results and the
development of the legionary system, the basic WARRIOR engine as it currently
exists does NOT support my reading of the record. And obviously most of the
other game developers out there over the years have been reading the record the
same way in terms of what they try to simulate in the end.

I can't speak for Bill and Jake here but Jon and I, when FHE was formed and we
were blocking out who did what and coming to terms over general direction and
concepts, Jon and I definitely had a goal of "doing something about the Romans".
And if Roman legionaries become the preemminent infantry type of the game,
that's not a bad thing. But that ain't gonna happen because other infantry
types with multiple arms and some barbarian foot will always have chances
against what you're going to see. Furthermore, as most of the "upper tier"
players will tell you, "successful" armies are not about a single "core" troop
type but about all the supporting cast. And thus far, no one is accusing any of
these Roman lists to be overwhelming in that regard. And if we succeed in
getting people to dust of the amazingly large # of painted Roman armies out
there, we've done a good thing.

I also need to add that the Roman list rules will go beyond simply plopping 1HCW
onto the appropriate legionarii. What we're trying to do is force players to
think about the consequences 1-3 bounds down the line when they do certain
things under the Roman list rules. We're also forcing players to think about
the tactical situations the forsee developing when they put together a list. I
love "decision points" and how things flow from them and thus, much of the
design philosophy behind the Roman list rules stems from that desire. And to
simulate the end results of Roman tactical engagements.

scott

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[scott holder]

You DON'T round up in any case with new FHE lists. In specific individual cases
in the old lists, I allow you to. This is NOT a blanket thing and once all the
FHW lists are out, this whole "rounding up" nonsense we've been forced to use to
mitigate the problems with old lists will be a thing of the past.

-----Original Message-----
From: jjendon@... [mailto:jjendon@...]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:24 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: 1HCW



> Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and half the
elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo.

Where do you get the data that you can round up? 1/2 is 1/2 and if you buy
only 3E, then only 1E can have the option. You can not go over 1/2 as far
as I know.

Don



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/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott,
Your point is well noted and a good one. So if 1/2 of each unit
is to be armed as HTW,JLS,Sh and the other half is JLS,Sh.
Then. . . you purchase 4 elements and pay 79 points and line the
elements up in column so you get the two elements of HTW,JLS,Sh in
the front two. The results for the Romans are the same as before
except on an even dice throw the Romans only do 24 fatigue points
(the CeltIberians now count as 9 figures) and the bad guys only take
2 cpf making them tired but not disordered. It's the same old wine,
just a different bottle. 79 points cost for the Barbarian trash
verses 122 for the Professionals in armor who die on even dice.
I know it comes down to tactics and support troops. And as one
of the players who occasionally wins a tournament here and there, I
understand the importance of support troops and yes, lancer cavalry
is the answer as my very good aquaintance, Frank Gilson so aptly
taught me at Historicon one year. But head to head and especially
point for point, the Irregular foot beats the trained veterans. Case
in point- - > Varangian Guard as Regular Hi or Irregular LHI? Who
has a better shot at victory head to head? Logically one would think
the Regular "A" Bodyguard would out perform the undisciplined
vikings. Not so in 7th ed. and it's heir, Warrior. I love Warrior
but I don't think that when a unit has Superior Training and Morale,
that it should be out performed by undisciplined irregulars is all.
Certainly there should be a chance for the irregulars to immediately
break the trained soldiers, but this should not happen on even dice
or in the case of moogs and spanish verses most close order foot
where the regulars must roll up 1 or two just to stay alive only to
be disordered and going backwards.

Respectfully yours,
KW
I know you have already finalized your ideas as to how a pila works
but I wonder how things would play out if on the initial bound when
the pila is thrown into non Pike/2HCT/2HCW, the enemy were to be
counted shieldless. . . ? I'm merely musing but it seems to me that
the Roman Pila was designed to do just that. At least having
upgraded troops with armor who are shieldless would be worth the
points as opposed to the poor fools without armor. . .


*******************************************************************

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> You DON'T round up in any case with new FHE lists. In specific
individual cases in the old lists, I allow you to. This is NOT a
blanket thing and once all the FHW lists are out, this
whole "rounding up" nonsense we've been forced to use to mitigate
the problems with old lists will be a thing of the past.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jjendon@c... [mailto:jjendon@c...]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:24 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: 1HCW
>
>
>
> > Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and
half the
> elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo.
>
> Where do you get the data that you can round up? 1/2 is 1/2 and
if you buy
> only 3E, then only 1E can have the option. You can not go over
1/2 as far
> as I know.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> 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/

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 12/4/2003 1:41:41 PM Central Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:
>I hope nobody takes offense at the above attempt at light hearted humor on a
topic that we put to bed years ago.
only to bed, not to sleep. <G>
Chris


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

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> It seems interesting that a primarily Hoplite army such as the
early Carthaginians were able to carve out such a big chunk of Spain
with their infantry routing everywhere against the invincible Spanish
from Hutchby and Clark. <snip>The Celt Iberians dish out 3 CPF and
more than double the "Spartans" in hand to hand combat which results
in the Spartans returning home on their shields! IS ANY OF
> THIS SINKING IN?????????!!!!!?? Just to SURVIVE, the "Spartans"
have to roll up 2! Even if they do their best and roll up 3 (or if
they are irregular up 4) they will always lose to an even (or down 1
result as the Celt Iberians are "B" class!) die roll from the
barbarian trash. How can any rules system justify such a result????
Spartans being trashed by Garbage foot! This is just too painful.
>
> kelly

Kelly exhei dikeo.

(Kelly has a good point/is correct.)



The Greek Kid