Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

I have actualy seen artillery used in tourneys. Most recently I
faced a Late Ottoman army with a bunch of bombards, and a bit
earlier a Yuan Chinese army with some kind of artillery. Going back
a few years I actually ran part of an Islamic Persian doubles army
that had bombards.

I think artillery is very powerful in the game but the problem is
with mobility. It tends to be set up and if the opponent wanders
into it then great. But it doesn't often keep up well with the
attack that most armies need to do well in tournaments, and
eventually one's own troops begin to get in the way of getting a
decent shot off so the artillery just sits there wasting points.

But there are certainly ways to fit it into defensive aspects of a
battle plan. If you can use terrain or troops dedicated to the
defensive stand to funnel opposing troops into a fire arc then you
can have a viable way of using it. Problem is still twofold though -
you need to prevent the other guy from using LI to screen it and you
need to expect all it will probably do is deny a certain slice of
battlefield to the enemy - you still need an active plan somewhere
else to actually win.

All that is maybe kind of obvious. I'm sorry perhaps someone who
uses it more regularly could explain better. But I do believe
mobility is the big difference and I personally find that to also be
a satisfying answer to this question historically.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, pcollins@f... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
> As Adrian earlier outlined, we have a tournament this weekend in
Australia
> and it is at this time, that wargaming fever hits most players.
Whilst
> looking through the lists the other night, I noticed that most
lists have
> artillery as an option, not surprising considering it was used by
most
> armies historically especially in later periods. What is
surprising though,
> is how rarely it is seen on the wargames table.
> Whilst I know that we generally play open games and not siege
warfare, I
> wonder why exactly most players generally do not pick artillery or
other
> more exotic choices like disguised camels, fire lances, flaming
camel carts
> and crazy cattle.
> Is it just points cost or difficulty incorporating their use in
game
> strategy?
>
> Any thoughts are welcome.
>
> Paul Collins,
> Barbarians Wargame club
> Syndey.

I agree with the comments on the defensive nature of artillery and this has
pretty much been the deciding factor in my not using it more than once. Of
course Steve's spectacular display was a second .

The best use I have seen of them was by a player using LIR who force
marched a unit to just short of the centre line and completely dominated
the central sector with artillery and legionary darts. Of course this
worked but once.

[Chris Bump]

Speaking of artillery, can you mass different types of artillery into a
single unit?

ie can light boltshooters and heavy stone throwers be part of the same
"batterie grande' ?"
Chris


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

[scott holder]

The best use I have seen of them was by a player using LIR who force
marched a unit to just short of the centre line and completely dominated
the central sector with artillery and legionary darts. Of course this
worked but once.

>I'm not sure why is only worked once. Of course if we're talking 15mm vs 25mm,
perhaps that's the difference. I play with artillery from time to time in 25mm
and the ole force march to the center line of the table gambit is almost always
viable. Obviously you need to support that force march, otherwise the arty can
be left hanging out to dry. It provides a variety of functions including the
already mentioned channelizing and "sector inhabitation prevention". If I want
to fight a battle on both flanks, this then is what I often do since in 25mm, if
I can setup the arty on the table centerline, I'm lobbing "shells" into my
opponents formations almost from the gitgo. And I don't care if he screens me
with LI, I'll shell them as well. Plus it usually means one less LI screen to
get out of the way elsewhere.

>The last time I played arty was the Tlaxcallan list with Spanish allies and
their associated artillery. Force marching is not something you do with this
list usually because scouting points are few. It becomes a counter punching
game and this is where your artillery thrives, particularly if you're willing to
move it around and think 3 bounds down the line.

scott

[scott holder]

Read the general comments section in the lists. That would tell you that in
general, no.

All FHE lists have artillery that comes with at least 2E so the old goofy list
of "0-1" doesn't apply--it never did since we've allowed "0-1" to be "rounded
up" to "0-2" for a decade now.

If you want an artillery park, by a unit of light BS, then stick it next to a
unit of heavy BS and so on.

scott

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@... [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:41 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Arty


Speaking of artillery, can you mass different types of artillery into a
single unit?

ie can light boltshooters and heavy stone throwers be part of the same
"batterie grande' ?"
Chris


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





Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Interesting that this thread has taken sucha turn. I am awaiting
the Phokan option within the hoplite list in hopes of creating a
hoplite army based upon LI J/sh and artillery batteries. Oh yet a
few hoplite blocks as well
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> Read the general comments section in the lists. That would tell
you that in general, no.
>
> All FHE lists have artillery that comes with at least 2E so the old
goofy list of "0-1" doesn't apply--it never did since we've
allowed "0-1" to be "rounded up" to "0-2" for a decade now.
>
> If you want an artillery park, by a unit of light BS, then stick it
next to a unit of heavy BS and so on.
>
> scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump@a... [mailto:cncbump@a...]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:41 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Arty
>
>
> Speaking of artillery, can you mass different types of artillery
into a
> single unit?
>
> ie can light boltshooters and heavy stone throwers be part of the
same
> "batterie grande' ?"
> Chris
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/23/2004 9:40:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump writes:

> Speaking of artillery, can you mass different types of
> artillery into a
> single unit?>>

Not unless the army list permits.

Just so you that it is possible to use Artillery in a variety of
ways, not all sensible, yet still be somewhat successful:

In around 1990 I was at CW in the basement era of the Lancaster
Host. I was playing 15mm Nikephorians. In the center just on my
side the guy placed a steep and rocky hill. Fine, I'm stuborn and
want the artillery in that area, so I forced marched it to the top of
the hill. Ok, it is disordered but I don't really care as the point
of the shot is as already noted...to ward off things. However I
placed two LI ambushes 40p from the bottom of the hill directly to
either side. Sure enough here he sends LMI to one side and some LC
to the other in order to deal with the apparently unsupported arty by
going around to the flanks. Certainly the artillery will turn, not
fire, and still be disordered when he gets to it. Surprise LI
rolling boulders and a failed waver testing LMI unit. Surprise LI
rolling boulders on the other side and a failed waver testing LC
unit. Nothing left but the cleanup for a 5-0 victory after the two
units are routed back through the enemy formations by EHC units. The
artillery never fired a shot :)

Wanax

[Mark Stone]

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

> Message: 23
> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:29:23 -0500
> From: "Todd Schneider" <thresh1642@...>
> Subject: RE: re: arty
>
> I think Artillery use also has a great deal to do with the players style of
> play, that is a more defensive minded player would be more likely to use it
> than an offensive minded player.
>
>

So, I'm going to disagree entirely here; isn't diversity great?

For several years my partner Bill Chamis and I ran Knights of Saint John at Cold
Wars in the doubles tournament. People who know my playing style know that I
tend to be on the aggressive end of the spectrum. Not quite up to the Chris
D'Amour "balls to the wall" standard, but when I play, I want to be on the
attack.

Bill and I typically took a 4 model unit of bombards, force marched to an
appropriate part of the battlefield, depending on terrain and our overall plan
of attack.

We weren't always successful. I did learn the hard way from Dave Markowitz (in
the finals, no less) that a 40 figure block of Scots spearmen can take out a
unit of bombards (hey, he did have to waver test for taking 2 CPF in prep).

But overall the bombards were very successful. Did they get off very many shots?
No. Did they have a major impact on our opponents most games? Yes. And that's
the key.

Warrior is a game of combined arms tactics, and positional play. Bombards,
especially in 25mm, can have a huge impact on positional play, especially if
force marched. I'll give one extreme example.

We played a game once against a steppe peoples horse archer army of some type.
Don't remember which one, but lots and lots of cav. So for terrain picks, we get
a woods with the option to place in the enemy rear zone. This we do, putting
it right smack in the middle. We then force marched the bombards to the middle
of the table, opposite the woods. As it happens, our opponents did not have a
force march in that particular spot (their force marchers were in the flank
sectors), so our bombard was placed right at the center line. In 25mm, the
bombards' arc of fire exends from the center line to the enemy rear zone.

So now our opponents have a dilemma. They could have planned to set up entirely
on one side or the other of the woods, but that would have cramped their
deployment too much. Having set up on both sides of the woods, however, they had
no easy way to get troops on one side of the woods to support troops on the
other side. They didn't want to move their cav through the woods, or through the
"zone of death" created by 4 bombards.

We, on the other hand, had complete freedom of movement. We marched a couple of
screening units backed up by some heavy cav on one side of the bombards, and
launched our assault with overwhelming superior force on the other side.

The princple here is effective interior lines of communication. We had them, and
denied them to our opponents. And a defense that lacks effective interior lines
of communication is generally doomed.

A couple of side points: yes, a light infantry screen in front of the bombards
would have helped them. But it's still a guessing game. They have to know (a)
that we're taking bombards, (b) that we're going to force march them, and (c)
where we're going to force march them. Second, and I've seen this over and over,
bombards seem to have a psychological effect out of all proportion to their
capabilities. Opponents spend an inordinate amount of time and energy thinking
about how to move around them and avoid any unit taking any kind of shot from
them.

This is one example. There are many others. Artillery can be used aggressively,
with great success. You take a risk, that a smart player like a Dave Markowitz
will respond with equal boldness, but that is the risk in any aggressive tactic.

Finally, I have to say that it is the ability to think about battle plans in
this way that makes Warrior so incredibly rewarding to play. I'm not all that
interested in getting the nuances of pike factors and lance factors right in the
rules. Nothing Jon and company can do there is going to be more than an
approximation anyway. And I'm not interested in a false sense of simulation,
pretending we know more about what mattered historically than we actually do
know. I am _very_ interested in having a game system where you can apply
historical ideas of command and control and see those unfold realistically in
the interactions on the table. Warrior is head and shoulders above _any_ other
miniatures game I've ever played in that regard, and I've been playing
miniatures for 20 years. It is in that important sense that Warrior is more
historical, more realistic, than other miniatures systems covering the same
historical period.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/23/2004 12:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

> In 25mm, the
> bombards' arc of fire exends from the center line to the enemy rear zone.>>

Note that this difference between 15mm and 25mm is entirely due to table size
differences. Note also that table size is in no way mandated by the rules.

. Second, and I've seen this over and over,
> bombards seem to have a psychological effect out of all proportion to their
> capabilities.>>

Amen. I see a forced marched unit of bombards and I see opportunity...lol

<< Opponents spend an inordinate amount of time and energy thinking
> about how to move around them and avoid any unit taking any kind of shot from
them. >>

This is a good point. Players prepping for a big tourney would be well advised
to lay some stands out on a table and develop a drill for taking out artillery
(and El, K, big missile units, temp fortifications, etc.) BEFORE the games
start.


> I'm not all that
> interested in getting the nuances of pike factors and lance factors right in
the
> rules. Nothing Jon and company can do there is going to be more than an
> approximation anyway.>>

Cool. I am taking the rest of the year off , then.... lol

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

I think Artillery use also has a great deal to do with the players style of
play, that is a more defensive minded player would be more likely to use it
than an offensive minded player.



_____

From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:47 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] re: arty



I have actualy seen artillery used in tourneys. Most recently I
faced a Late Ottoman army with a bunch of bombards, and a bit
earlier a Yuan Chinese army with some kind of artillery. Going back
a few years I actually ran part of an Islamic Persian doubles army
that had bombards.

I think artillery is very powerful in the game but the problem is
with mobility. It tends to be set up and if the opponent wanders
into it then great. But it doesn't often keep up well with the
attack that most armies need to do well in tournaments, and
eventually one's own troops begin to get in the way of getting a
decent shot off so the artillery just sits there wasting points.

But there are certainly ways to fit it into defensive aspects of a
battle plan. If you can use terrain or troops dedicated to the
defensive stand to funnel opposing troops into a fire arc then you
can have a viable way of using it. Problem is still twofold though -
you need to prevent the other guy from using LI to screen it and you
need to expect all it will probably do is deny a certain slice of
battlefield to the enemy - you still need an active plan somewhere
else to actually win.

All that is maybe kind of obvious. I'm sorry perhaps someone who
uses it more regularly could explain better. But I do believe
mobility is the big difference and I personally find that to also be
a satisfying answer to this question historically.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, pcollins@f... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
> As Adrian earlier outlined, we have a tournament this weekend in
Australia
> and it is at this time, that wargaming fever hits most players.
Whilst
> looking through the lists the other night, I noticed that most
lists have
> artillery as an option, not surprising considering it was used by
most
> armies historically especially in later periods. What is
surprising though,
> is how rarely it is seen on the wargames table.
> Whilst I know that we generally play open games and not siege
warfare, I
> wonder why exactly most players generally do not pick artillery or
other
> more exotic choices like disguised camels, fire lances, flaming
camel carts
> and crazy cattle.
> Is it just points cost or difficulty incorporating their use in
game
> strategy?
>
> Any thoughts are welcome.
>
> Paul Collins,
> Barbarians Wargame club
> Syndey.



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004



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