Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2002 06:11:58 Central Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> I had all my double-mounted light bolt shooters sitting on a hill in the
> middle of the table and he couldn't bring his knights anywhere near them.

Took care of that double-mounted stuff didn't we? ;)

I wasn't the big knight-dismounter I am now, but the point's a good one.

And those Yuan!


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

[joncleaves]

yeah, but Scott, Tim was asking, I think, about a game where BOTH are
marching.

I'm with you - the one guy attacking the other guy marching won't fly.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2002 07:30:40 Central Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> >Two words: List rule. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm having fun here,
> don't
> take this seriously francis:)
>

Don't worry. I *know* you are kidding...



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

[scott holder]

First, I know that the Romans encountered cataphracts well before their run-ins
with the Parthians. There was a battle against the Seleucids but I haven't had
time to dig thru my books to find the specific reference. I can't remember if
this battle/engagement took place during the Punic era or much later when Rome
expanded into the Levant. Second, late late Republican campaigns in/against
Armenia could have resulted in Roman "exposure" to cataphracts. Again, I
haven't had time (too busy working on Hohenstaufen Sicilians) to dig any deeper.

Anyway, our discussion on Carrhae dovetails nicely with a very brief blurb in
Colleen McCullough's book "The October Horse". To set the context, it's the
night before the Ides of March and Caeser is attending a small dinner party at a
friends. A number of the conspirators who would assasinate him the next day are
also present but that's not really the important point here. They are
discussing Caeser's impending campaign against......the Parthians. Here goes:

"Now that your head is up from your papers, answer me one question," said
Dolabella. "I note you want a hundred pieces of artillery per legion for the
Parthian campaign. I know you're an ardent exponent of artilery, Caeser, but
isn't that excessive?"
"Cataphracts," said Caeser
"Cataphracts," asked Dolabella, frowning.
"Parthian cavalry," said Cassius, who had seen them in their thousands at the
Bilechas River. "Clad in chainmail from head to foot. They ride giant horses
clad in chainmail too."
"Yes, I remembered in your report to the Senate, Cassius, that you said they
couldn't charge at a full gallop, and it occurred to me that they would suffer
terribly from heavy bombardment in the early stages of a battle," said Caeser,
looking pensive. "It may also be possible to bombard the trains of camels bring
spare arrows up to the Parthian archer cavalry. If my ideas are wrong, I'll put
however much of the artillery into storage, but somehow I don't think I'm
wrong."

Heh heh, Ms McCullough has obviously played Warrior a time or two:) I
remember a game I played against Jon during his first tour at Leavenworth,
Teutonic Knights vs Yuan. Four hours and he won 2-1. Not exactly a slug fest.
Why? I had all my double-mounted light bolt shooters sitting on a hill in the
middle of the table and he couldn't bring his knights anywhere near them.
Trying to funnel his good stuff into my schlocky (but potent) Reg D Korean foot
only went so far because again, those were the kinds of troops designed to kill
cav. In some ways, that game parallels what is raised in the previous
paragraph. To be honest, I don't know the "paper ratio" of artillery to legions
from the EIR period onward but am sure it's out there somewhere.

One other note on Carhhae, I believe the account is that there were 7,000
cataphracts (I could have this mixed up with total number of Parthian cav but I
don't think so) facing Crassus on the campaign. When he drew up 7 legions into
some form of large hollow square, that would have been close to 30,000
legionaires. As a Parthian commander, I wouldn't like those odds even if I
could pick which side I'd slam into. Works about the same in Warrior as well.

Something like Carhhae would be an ideal 6mm game, take an entire weekend to
play it out, build a donut shaped set of tables, Roman players on the inside,
Parthian players outside. Roman players don't do much, in fact, you could
probably make this a sort of umpire driven format (akin to D&D) in that the
Romans would play the battle as close to the historical account as possible and
see what happens when they try to break into column and leave.

scott

[scott holder]

Warrior has the mechanics; in the ten years I've been playing I've never
seen it.

>Once, at a northern VA tourney I ran perhaps 10 years ago now. *Not* fun bec
ause of the rather, um, how shall I put this? *abrasive/abusive/obnoxious/win
atallcosts* personalities involved on *both* sides of the table. Player A is
the marching player, is pissed off because he's marching (the usual "this isn'
t fair" whining, etc). Player A then tries some adroit rules manipulation in
order to get his column out of column sooner than Player B feels is appropriat
e as per the rules. Player B then decides to light the table on fire (game pl
oy, not literally light the table on fire--by that time, I would have gladly d
oused both of them in lighter fluid and tossed the match) which sends Player A
into the roof. It got worse from there:(:(

Both players spent 4 frustrating hours essentially poking the emotional hot bu
ttons of the other using rules manipulations to jab the poker. It reminded me
of the absolute worst players and moments during my formative years playing 5
th and 6th edition where the sole purpose of good players was to browbeat the
umpire into letting them bend the rules however they wanted in order to crush
their hapless opponent---heh heh, But I digress. I swore after that particula
r low point in TOG that all tourney games *I* ran would be fair and open.

Is time the factor; gauging victory (put a well in the middle of the table
and play king of the hill); scale wrong for an 8x5 table?

>See above. And I gotta admit, in the limited mindset of tournament gaming, h
aving some random occurrence of an attack on a marching force *does* throw the
whole "level playing field" concept out of whack. In reality, tournament gam
ing I think is setup like a chess tourney and that's the way players want it.
Sure, it's not truly a level playing field because of the armies involved but
at least players who want to win win win, have presumably selected an army th
at best suits their needs with that goal in mind. Having said that, I love we
ather effects and we don't see enough of those!

>Of course we've never gone into the oddball nuances of running a tournament w
here, let's say you play 4 games all of which are attack on marching forces.
You play two games as the marching player, two games as the "licking your chop
s in anticipation" player. That would provide some gauge of skill in somethin
g other than a set-piece battle.

>Moreover, the vast majority of battles were set-piece. Oh sure, we can trot
out a number of exceptions to that (some Swiss ambush in the early-middle 1300
s, the Germans annihalating the EIR during Augustus's reign, etc., but most of
what gets good press are the "I fight you, You fight me" mano e mano battles.
And that's translated into how tourneys are *usually* run.

>So much of what you say above is correct in that players don't really want to
play king of the hill *and* time is a factor. Attacks on marching forces can
take time to work out mainly because the marching player *agonizes* over ever
y move knowing full well he's at a huge disadvantage. Scale in 25mm I'm not s
ure about since the "game from hell" outlined above was played in 15mm. I was
the umpire in that tourney, not a player.

scott
fair and open ho

[scott holder]

> I had all my double-mounted light bolt shooters sitting on a hill in the
> middle of the table and he couldn't bring his knights anywhere near them.

Took care of that double-mounted stuff didn't we? ;)

>Two words: List rule. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm having fun here, don't
take this seriously francis:):)

I wasn't the big knight-dismounter I am now, but the point's a good one.
And those Yuan!

>I still can't run em worth a damn, probably because they require too much fin
esse and lack a really good punch troop. Moreover, games against really exper
ienced players become very taxing affairs mentally because Yuan players can't
really afford any mistakes in deployment and particulary execution. Yeah, the
Korean foot are gods but if you hose up your cav and they start taking waver
tests, it's back to Beijing for ya.

scott
artillery ho

[scott holder]

yeah, but Scott, Tim was asking, I think, about a game where BOTH are
marching.
I'm with you - the one guy attacking the other guy marching won't fly.

>D'Oh! McFly *pounding on my forehead*, MCLFY!!!!!!!!

>Yes, I now vaguely remember seeing this pop up in the early early days of TOG
. What I can't remember is if that happened in a tourney format or at one of
the games in my basement. I remember both players having fun with it since th
eir columns came in diagonally from the other and then they had to deploy and
move guys within a narrow, but ever widening space.

>Time *could* be an issue here in a tournament sense but wouldn't have to be I
suppose. Heh heh, now there's an interesting format, play everyone of your g
ames where both players march onto the table. Off the top of my head, 15mm wo
uld work better here and cav armies, regular ones at that, would have somethin
g of an advangtage. But then again, wtf do I know.

scott

[Chris Bump]

Yes, but correct syntax would have required him to write "Jon was correct."
Shall we still repeat? ;^)

In a message dated 12/23/2002 7:33:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

> <<Jon is correct.>>
>
> Repeat after me....lol
>
>
>



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

[joncleaves]

<<Jon is correct.>>

Repeat after me....lol

[joncleaves]

Yes, but correct syntax would have required him to write "Jon was correct."
Shall we still repeat? ;^)>>

No, present tense is quite accurate in this case.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Holder"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:


Re:....discussion on Carrhae

Surena's contingent is estimated at 1K Cats and 10K Lt horse. He
was actually a delaying force to allow the main Parthian army to
invade Armenia. He did such a good job he lost his head. I guess
the King didn't like the competition.

The group surrounded was 8 cohorts that left the main army when they
chased some Parthians. Wasn't Crassus's son killed with
them? Anyway, they shot these guys all day long. The Cats
approached, took off their robes to expose their and the horses
armor, but never charged.

For actual contact between the infantry and Parthian Cats, it's
recorded in 38 and 39 BC. Both times the infantry handed the
Cat's heads to them. If I remember correctly, the Parthains
never again confronted a Roman field army, less expose the Cats to
Roman Infantry. They used their Lt Cav to hit supply lines, shadow,
etc. I believe the Romans burned the Parthian capital 5 or 6 times
in as many campaigns after this.

I might be mixing references and periods, but I recall the Roman
infantry maneuvering to charge cataphracts. It seems they wanted to
close with them as if the Cats ran so did the rest of the army.–
don't remember if this was against the Sassanids or still the
Parths (age and took many knocks on the K-pot I guess :)

The "loss of heart" at Carhhae might have something to do the
Romans losing their Log Trains prior to the battle too. I could also
say something about Crassus as a non-military man or having any idea
of command. A Roman General, he was not. He did have some big bucks,
which he spread around and bought plenty of influence (some things
never change, eh?).

An interesting note on Roman military flexibility: I believe it was
Cassius who actually used Parthian techniques against the Parthians,
i.e. feigned flight, a chase, entrapment, surrounded and slaughtered
them.

Roman organization was structured to kill Samites and various other
hill tribes. They never respected Etruscan or Italo-Greek Settlement
military ability. Their focus on the Etruscans and Greeks had to do
with resources, trade, and the niceties they possessed. Folks like
the Samites gave them military fits.

Regards,
Fred

[scott holder]

The group surrounded was 8 cohorts that left the main army when they
chased some Parthians. Wasn't Crassus's son killed with
them? Anyway, they shot these guys all day long. The Cats
approached, took off their robes to expose their and the horses
armor, but never charged.

>First, I love these discussions. Yes, Crassus's son ran off with 1,000 cav (
that according to Delbruck) and was killed.

For actual contact between the infantry and Parthian Cats, it's
recorded in 38 and 39 BC. Both times the infantry handed the
Cat's heads to them.

>This would have been during Antony's Parthian Campaign. Can you provide a di
rect reference? All I have at hand right now is Delbruck's commentary and he
makes it clear that the only "battle" was when the Parthians caught one of Ant
ony's subordinate commanders with his pants down and destroyed much of the sei
ge train. That sorta screwed up his whole approach and he went home to Cleopa
tra.

I might be mixing references and periods, but I recall the Roman
infantry maneuvering to charge cataphracts. It seems they wanted to
close with them as if the Cats ran so did the rest of the army.

>We could construct this easily in Warrior. You bet, Roman legionaires (EIR o
r Marian) being able to charge cats either mean the latter stands, and dies, o
r waver tests to countercharge.

>It's also clear from Arrian's material that if the Romans adopted some type o
f incredibly densely packed formation, cats wouldn't charge. But then that ma
de them totally immobile.


scott

>First, I love these discussions.

---Me too.

>This would have been during Antony's Parthian Campaign. Can you
provide a direct reference? All I have at hand right now is
Delbruck's commentary and he makes it clear that the only "battle"
was when the Parthians caught one of Antony's subordinate commanders
with his pants down and destroyed much of the seige train. That sorta
screwed up his whole approach and he went home to Cleopatra.

---I believe the Parthians did catch part of Antony's baggage
train. In 39 BC the referenced commander was Bassus and in 38 BC,
Ventidius. Primary source is Dio: 48.39.1-40 and 49.20.1-4.
Ventidius sallied out from his camp with slinger support to attack
and Bassus countercharged.

---May I suggest Goldsworthy's Roman Army at War 100 BC –AD
200 as a marvelous secondary reference slash analysis. This book is
the best I've read of at least a dozen period references. His
logistics discussion is worth the price in itself. Whether one
agrees with him or not, he cites the direct primary resources by
paragraph which he basis his analysis. Makes it a lot easier to find
the exact passages instead of hunting through entire texts.

>We could construct this easily in Warrior. You bet, Roman
legionaires (EIR or Marian) being able to charge cats either mean the
latter stands, and dies, or waver tests to countercharge.

---I would think that cav getting near enough to close ordered
infantry …i.e. into the infantry's charge distance… would
be taking a morale hit by allowing the infantry initiative. On the
other side, there are not many instances where infantry initiated
contact with cavalry. Maybe the infantry would need a waiver to
charge. I think the infantry-cavalry relationship is a psychological
one (what isn't in war…). In basic physical terms, my
opinion is cavalry can/could never overcome the mass of the infantry
unless they reached terrific momentum or matched the infantry in
depth thus lowering their need for a high velocity. The density of
infantry mass-packets compared to the cavalry's is just too high.
I
calculated it once on a unit frontage of two Cat turmae (64 troopers)
vs the cohort equivalent frontage of 8 deep foot…the Cats had to
hit a velocity of well over 7 m/s to overcome the infantry mass. Just
numbers, I know, but it showed me from an unequivocal physical basis
what could be real or not. Anyway, cavalry were devastating if the
infantry allowed them to be so. If the infantry gave up their mass
advantage –broke formation, ran, etc. - then in general, cav is
very deadly. I'd guess in game terms, if Cats were within COI
charge range, both would wavier test to charge, failure could cause a
halt, disorder, and bad news to either. This may put a more emphasis
on commander decision making on both ends.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to look for a rule change. Just
interested gaining concepts for own use for historical scenario play.

---I think the biggest disadvantage infantry based armies had was the
inability to bring the mobile opponent to a decisive point in time or
space. The cavalry armies could choose their when, where, and if.

>It's also clear from Arrian's material that if the Romans adopted
some type of incredibly densely packed formation, cats wouldn't
charge. But then that made them totally immobile.

---Totally agree. Here's one though. Were those dense packets
formed to stop the Cats or to stop the guys from running away from
the Cats ? By reducing unit frontage ("rear-age" too) you
had fewer guys to hit with your vine stick to keep them in place.
Any senior NCO out there would most likely agree with this practice.
<chuckle>

----Merry Christmas All! Hopefully SantaWarrior visited and brought
you everything you asked for!
Fred