Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:07:56 -0000
> From: "John" <jjmurphy@...>
>
> Free Company is an often-overlooked list that offers many of these
> same features. I ran it like the following but I suspect the
> configuration of the longbowmen could be improved by a different mix
> of LMI/LHI and 2HCW...
> 1x CinC 2E Reg B SHK/EHK L,Sh (PA) @ 221 points
> 1x Sub 2E Reg B SHK/EHK L,Sh (P) @ 151 points
> 4x 2E Irr B/C SHK/HC L,Sh @ 103 points
> 6x 4E Reg C LHI 2HCW,LB,Sh/LB @ 106 points
> 2x 6E Irr C LI JLS,Sh @ 61 points
> 2x 4E Reg D LI CB @ 26 points

I've looked at Free Company from time to time, but I don't think it offers any
advantage over several other lists on which longbowmen appear in quantity. And
it's hard to imagine someone who would play Free Company out of greater
historical interest. These guys were kind of a chivalric low point in Medieval
history.

The list above should rely less on knight units with C class troops in them, and
should have some larger longbow units that are all LMI, w/Sh in the front.

>
> Having played Medieval Spanish just a few times though I must say
> for this kind of thing I feel like it is a better list. In fact, I
> considered a doubles list without the longbows but not sure what
> this do when faced by a good skirmishing army...
> 1x CinC 2E RgA SHK/EHK L,Sh(PA) @226
> 2x Sub 2E RgA SHK/EHK L,Sh(P) @156
> 6x Knights 2E IrB SHK/EHK L,Sh @124
> 3x Moogs 6E IrB LMI HTW,JLS,Sh/HTW.JLS @106
> 1x Jinetes 6E IrC LC JLS,Sh @97
> 2x Slings 6E IrC LI S,Sh/S @55
> 2x Archer 6E IrC LI B @49
> 2x Xbow 6E IrC LI CB @49

I actually think the above is one very valid way to play the Spanish. You throw
out a sparse screen of lights and then point the knights and "moogs" at
something. You may or may not win, but you're certainly going to do some
damage.

>
> But overall I have settled into playing Moldavians anyhow - which
> Mark Stone mentioned as another army with knights and good support
> troops (though I suspect he does it a bit differently with SHK even
> though my method was inspired by his skirmisher paper, and Sean
> Scott's Italian Condotta list). The really, really good LC (as good
> as or better than Mongols actually in my opinion) combined with the
> secret of actually really good LI makes a huge difference in
> supporting the knights (which I just use the cheap but very
> effective HK) and setting the plate. Quite the opposite feel to
> play. Also when you want to kick back and have fun with them you can
> just play over the top aggressive, finish in two hours, and mostly
> come out okay if not the optimal approach all the time.
>

I think this list can do fine just running HK. Remember, HK is only one factor
worse than SHK when facing other L-armed cav. It is considerably more
vulnerable to missile fire, but with a strong screen of lights you should be
able to minimize prep shooting on the knights. And HK are so damned cheap! 33
points a stand for Irr Bs; now that's efficiency.

I would play the list in a more complicated way, utilizing the Hungarian SHK and
having at least one Mongol HC/MC unit, as well as a couple of 2 stand Mongol LC
units. But that's just me; I always tend to play a fairly complex list
configuration. In the current one list tournament era, that's my way of making
sure I have something on the list to deal with just about any contingency. The
down side is I often don't have enough of the things I need. The alternative
approach -- doing one thing overwhelmingly well and hoping you don't draw
matchups that are too adverse -- is also a valid approach. That approach is the
one Sean Scott favors, and one that Ewan has praised repeatedly. It's just not
my style.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

"The alternative approach -- doing one thing overwhelmingly well and hoping you
don't draw matchups that are too adverse -- is also a valid approach. That
approach is the one Sean Scott favors, and one that Ewan has praised
repeatedly. It's just not my style.

-Mark Stone"

I think this tells us that Mark may be a better real-life general than a
tournament gamer ).

For me, coming 1st once and 97th once is better than coming 2nd twice. So in a
one-list tournament setting, I want to maximise my chances at the cost, if
needed, of leaving some vulnerabilities.

Actually, that oversimplifies. The plot of 'max killing' vs 'max vulnerable' is
not linear, and of course I aim for an inflexion point. But it's close.

And... well, even than, my bias is in any case toward light-heavy (!) armies
which are difficult for most opponents to kill. I don't think I've had any
game over the last several years where an opponent was able to force me to
fight where I didn't want to or at least choose to. So my army-design
philosophy may be further biased by that predeliction for manouvre/screen.