Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Hey Jon

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jon Becker wrote:
> I'm going to paint my first Warrior 1600 pt 25mm army. Specifically, I'm
> considering Later Tang, 5 Dynasties & 10 Independent States, Yuan Dynasty or
> Timurid.

3 of these I think are top rate in Warrior, the exception being the Yuan
(which is not bad, just not so good). I'm not personally a fan of 10IS
but you can hear more about that from others. Both Tang and Timurid I
like very much, but they're hugely different - do you prefer close,
resilient cheap foot or fleet but expensive mounted? Tang cannot (as I
would take them) fight in terrain, but are extremely cost-effective (if a
little short on light troops); Timurid is a juggernaut but has slight
problems using the elephants with the non El-proof mounted (which is one
reason I run Sassanid).

I'd probably pick Tang as more generic of that type of Chinese, perhaps,
but if you like El instead of Tibetans then do otherwise .

I posted a 1200 pt Tang list a while back, and I think it's actually
better at that point level. At 1600, add more stuff but no more shock
(well, maybe a unit of decent infantry). 10IS lists ask Mark Stone.
Timurid is more flexible, but very much a combined-arms,
some-of-everything type of army.

Sorry not to be more definite. Off to WBC for six days of boardgaming! :)

Ewan

[joncleaves]

Molynia for Timurids. Dixon for Chinese. Old Glory for Mongols.

Got to amazonminiatures.com and surf by nation.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Becker <JonBecker@...>
To: WarriorRules <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:13:41 -0500
Subject: [WarriorRules] 25-28mm Chinese


Hello All!
I'm going to paint my first Warrior 1600 pt 25mm army. Specifically, I'm
considering Later Tang, 5 Dynasties & 10 Independent States, Yuan Dynasty or
Timurid.

Some questions....

Anyone have any thoughts on which of these 4 lists is better or worse?
Looking for opinions and attitude (and any sample lists).

Are there any good historical sites to check into for research on variations
in weapons, armour, etc. between these eras? Did they differ enough in
style, etc. to matter for a representation in Warrior figures?

Can anyone recommend some figure makers for 25-28mm Chinese and/or Korean?
Anything specific to any of the above 4 types/lists?

My aim is to be as historically accurate in every detail with this project
and need any advice or guidance available.

Thanks!




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 1 Jon Becker said: ---

> I'm going to paint my first Warrior 1600 pt 25mm army. Specifically, I'm
> considering Later Tang, 5 Dynasties & 10 Independent States, Yuan Dynasty or
> Timurid.
>
> Some questions....
>
> Anyone have any thoughts on which of these 4 lists is better or worse?
> Looking for opinions and attitude (and any sample lists).

Ewan gave some good analysis on these lists several days ago, and I've been
swamped at work, but I finally can catch my breath long enough to reply.

Before the publication of Oriental Warrior, Yuan Dynasty was the premier list of
this group. It had the best configuration of close order bowmen, a few Irr As,
and adequate lance-armed cav. Plus it has the historical interest of being the
army of Kublai Khan. Eric Turner played it for years with great success.

Oriental Warrior revises our interpretation of the Southern Tribesmen, making
them more fanatical in earlier periods but less so in later periods. This means
that the Yuan lose their Irr As, but the Tang and 5K10IS have them. The cavalry
is now better on the Yuan list due to the Mongol list rules, and the Irr As were
never the main reason to play the list, so overall the Yuan list is still solid,
but I think it has been surpassed by the others.

The first question to ask yourself is whether you want elephants or SHC for your
shock troops. Being a long time knight player, I really expected my answer would
be to favor SHC, and I thought for quite a while that Tang would be my army at
the NICT last month. The more I thought about it, though, and the more I
crunched the numbers, the more I concluded that _any_ elephants, even mediocre
elephants, had greater shock power than SHC, and that elephants worked nicely
in conjunction with non-impetuous infantry (they can charge together) whereas
coordinating SHC with regular infantry is difficult at best.

So I found myself leaning towards 5K10IS. Factor in that bowmen just don't get
any cheaper than Irr D, and you get more missile fire on that list than any of
these others. Finally, it's the first list on which you can get firelance-armed
infantry. This is a huge plus in my mind; the Tang lack that extra infantry
punch that comes with firelance.

You may, however, opt for SHC. There are enemy troop types where SHC match up
better than elephants: Late Romans, and missile-armed troops are best opposed
with SHC. That imperviousness to missile fire opens up a host of SHC tactics
not available to elephant armies. So opting for SHC shock troops is by no means
a poor choice, and ultimately may be a matter of playing style.

Between Tang and Timurids there are clear contrasts, but not a clearly superior
army. Basically it's a question of whether you want to be the hammer or the
anvil. Timurids are a "hammer" army: lots of cav, including high quality light
cav, good loose order foot which, being regular and getting 3 march move
segments, is also fast. While the foot can be vulnerable to enemy cav, you can
take some elephants and have the foot operate within the "zone of control" of
the elephants. You will find, however, that buying SHC, other regular cav,
elephants, and some regular loose order foot gets expensive quickly. You just
aren't going to have as many guys, and certainly not as many bows, as the other
armies you mention.

Tang is an "anvil" army. It is slow and ponderous, but incredibly tough at all
points. Much as with 5K10IS, you shoot the heck out of your opponent,
pressurize him with your advancing LTS,B line, and look to create disruptions
that your SHC (and perhaps Irr A LMI) can exploit. It's a reactive,
counter-punching army, and achieves its success with the sheer overwhelming
mass of its main line backed by a few well-positioned shock troops.

You'll spend more money on figures and more time painting if you opt for Tang or
5K10IS. Perhaps a virtue of Timurids is they'll be cheaper and faster to get
ready.

In terms of historical interest, Timurids has to count pretty highly. Most
people with any broad interest in military history have heard of Timur, even if
only as "Tamerlane". And he was involved in some major, and pivotal battles. The
aftermath of the Battle of Ankara, for example, is one of those great historical
"what ifs". Here, out of the blue, a foe had arrived to eradicate the nemesis of
the Christian West, the Ottoman Turks. And when the Turks had been defeated,
their Sultan captured and put in a cage, the West did.... nothing! Talk about
missed opportunities.

Most of the notorious legends we associate with the Mongols and -- mistakenly --
Genghis Khan, actually stem from Timur. I have a friend of mine on this list who
shall remain anonymous who once referred to Timurids as his "favorite evil
army."

> Are there any good historical sites to check into for research on variations
> in weapons, armour, etc. between these eras? Did they differ enough in
> style, etc. to matter for a representation in Warrior figures?

Timurids probably has the most readily available information, followed by Yuan
Mongol. 5K10IS is going to be the hardest to track down info on. Someone other
than me can probably point you to some excellent Tang resources. I'll see what
I can unearth on Timurids.

> Can anyone recommend some figure makers for 25-28mm Chinese and/or Korean?
> Anything specific to any of the above 4 types/lists?

I _love_ my Molinya figures for my Chinese, and they are gradually rolling out
their Timurid line as well. Not sure about Korean.


-Mark Stone