Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

Hush Kelly ... you elephant lovin' Yankee ... ;-)

Next, your going to be telling us that Varangians actually beat Normans,
straight up ... when we all know that what really happened is that the night
before the battle, some drunken Almughavars wandered into the Norman camp and
robbed them of their shields.

The next day, the Normans had to fight shieldless, and were totally screed.

G

[Ewan McNay]

Scott H commented that I might followup my approach on avoiding wavers
/ designing armies. OK.

Then I wrote a whole piece, using army selection for the NICT as an
example... but it didn't really read or flow well. So I basically
concluded that it's not really what I do. What I really do is try to
avoid having troops in my army which, if I were an opponent, would
scream *target!* - at least, not without a plan . I've run
Seleucids using Irreg D MI B, which are certainly a target for
opposing foot, but then I don't plan to get them in the way of that
foot . Things like Irreg LMI (esp. if not A class), EHC JLS, MI
JLS, infantry with LTS, shieldless or 2HCW-using close or loose
infantry, and so on, all look to me likie something that an opponent
might easily pick on with any of a wide variety of opposing armies, so
I try to avoid them. A couple of units, maybe OK. An army dominated
by such - no chance. Another example from the seleucids: I have run
the regular Thracians, (2HCW, JLS, Sh LMI guys) because there are only
two units of peltasts available and I wanted a third unit of loose
troops. They are definitely a target to many opponents, and it's
close whether it's a good idea. [For any novices, this is because
2HCW makes you shieldless in combat after the first round, which if
you're LMI essentially means that you are toast, and it even means
that your rear rank stops fighting after that first round, so that
they are paying for a weapon which has *only* negative consequences!]
The Thracians *are* good against opposing El, so at least they have
an upside, except of course that the El are not going to be in the
brush so the Thracians are likely to take a waver for being charged,
as uneasy C class - not a great idea either.

This is turning into another aimless screed, so let me just restate:
avoid targets, *then* make sure you have a punch of your own. This is
also pretty much the Dave S school of thought, I believe, although
that's mostly assumed from looking at his armies rather than
discussion. Boyd's hoplites don't really meet either element - they
can't punch and they are easily beaten. Aztecs or something don't
really have a lot of punch *but* they can grind pretty fast. Knights
sometimes risk being all punch, no resilience and vulnerable to El.
You get the idea.

[Anyone have Hutchby & Clark's Seleucid list that they could easily
fax or email me, btw? Fax is 203-737-2812; I'm just curious, I've
never actually seen it. Thanks!]

Ewan

[scott holder]

This is turning into another aimless screed

>LOL, this is hysterically funny, "aimless screed", I gotta remember that one
for use in other appropriate moments. Screed, great word.

Aztecs or something don't
really have a lot of punch *but* they can grind pretty fast.

>Aztec Irr A in their various flavors (Warrior Priests, Otontin, Otomis) have
amazing punch, particularly if you go with the 2HCT, JLS front rank, 1HCW, JLS
second rank. Wonderful infantry and El killers, well, the latter a tad bit less
so cuz of the rank restrictions of 1HCW against certain troop types but still
the JLS and other weapons with Irr A will do. I'm still messing around with em
and keep getting drawn into playing Tlaxcallans instead which has an entirely
different dynamic.

Fax is 203-737-2812; I'm just curious, I've
never actually seen it. Thanks!]

>Can do that tomorrow.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/8/2003 2:31:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> [For any novices, this is because
> 2HCW makes you shieldless in combat after the first round, which if you're
LMI essentially means that you are toast, and it even means that your rear rank
stops fighting after that first round, so that they are paying for a weapon
which has *only* negative consequences!] >>

Reg Thracian LMI with both 2HCW and JLS would have 1/2 a back rank fighting with
and 2HCW never fights two ranks (first bound or no) without a list rule. So
what does the last part fo the above sentence mean? Or am I missing something?

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Which Aztec army was it that faced elephants. . . ? I suspect the Aztecs would
have ran screaming with abject terror from the first elephant they met on a
battlefield!
Kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
This is turning into another aimless screed

>LOL, this is hysterically funny, "aimless screed", I gotta remember that one
for use in other appropriate moments. Screed, great word.

Aztecs or something don't
really have a lot of punch *but* they can grind pretty fast.

>Aztec Irr A in their various flavors (Warrior Priests, Otontin, Otomis) have
amazing punch, particularly if you go with the 2HCT, JLS front rank, 1HCW, JLS
second rank. Wonderful infantry and El killers, well, the latter a tad bit less
so cuz of the rank restrictions of 1HCW against certain troop types but still
the JLS and other weapons with Irr A will do. I'm still messing around with em
and keep getting drawn into playing Tlaxcallans instead which has an entirely
different dynamic.

Fax is 203-737-2812; I'm just curious, I've
never actually seen it. Thanks!]

>Can do that tomorrow.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/8/2003 4:07:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> when we all know that what really happened is that the night
> before the battle, some drunken Almughavars wandered into
> the Norman camp and robbed them of their shields.>>

Now *that* is funny.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

roflmao!!!! I'm still trying to pronounce that Moog word!
Almuuuuughuuuuvarrrrr.....! LOL! Hey, who ya call'in a YANKEE???? I'm from the
state that gave Lawerance, KS it's new start complements of MR. QUANTRELL!
Yankee....BAH! Thems almost fahtin words! Don't you know that YANKEES come from
that North Eastern part of the USA! Ain't that right Jon?!

Kelly

gar@... wrote:
Hush Kelly ... you elephant lovin' Yankee ... ;-)

Next, your going to be telling us that Varangians actually beat Normans,
straight up ... when we all know that what really happened is that the night
before the battle, some drunken Almughavars wandered into the Norman camp and
robbed them of their shields.

The next day, the Normans had to fight shieldless, and were totally screed.

G


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/8/2003 22:04:49 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> was playing with just this, until I noticed that giving 2HCT to JLS
> guys merely ensures that the JLS can never be used! Which is too bad -
> but that's the case, right?
>
>

No. 9.22: "A second rank of foot armed with JLS and behind a front rank of
foot, cavalry or chariots, fights at half effect at first contact. " After
that, the 2HCT would keep them from using the JLS, but not at first contact.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/8/2003 22:09:41 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> As you note,
> they never get to use the 2HCW at all

They certainly do - at first contact. The second rank would only ever get to
use the 2HCW if expanded in a subsequent bound, but the fact that a second
rank of 2HCW doesn't count without a list rule has nothing to do with arming
them with JLS also.


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

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott" <
Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> This is turning into another aimless screed
>
> >LOL, this is hysterically funny, "aimless screed", I gotta remember that one
for use in other appropriate moments. Screed, great word.
>
> Aztecs or something don't
> really have a lot of punch *but* they can grind pretty fast.
>
> >Aztec Irr A in their various flavors (Warrior Priests, Otontin, Otomis) have
amazing punch, particularly if you go with the 2HCT, JLS front rank, 1HCW, JLS
second rank.

I was playing with just this, until I noticed that giving 2HCT to JLS
guys merely ensures that the JLS can never be used! Which is too bad -
but that's the case, right?

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/8/2003 2:31:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, ewan.mcnay@y...
writes:
>
> > [For any novices, this is because
> > 2HCW makes you shieldless in combat after the first round, which if you're
LMI essentially means that you are toast, and it even means that your rear rank
stops fighting after that first round, so that they are paying for a weapon
which has *only* negative consequences!] >>
>
> Reg Thracian LMI with both 2HCW and JLS would have 1/2 a back rank fighting
with and 2HCW never fights two ranks (first bound or no) without a list rule.
So what does the last part fo the above sentence mean? Or am I missing
something?

Dunno. I think one of us is. If the back rank were JLS only, they
would keep their JLS for use in subsequent combat bounds. As you note,
they never get to use the 2HCW at all - so its only impact is to
diminish combat effectiveness in second-and-subsequent bounds (against
certain opponents), despite being something for which points are paid.
My guess is that this is a hangover from lists written for 6tyh edition
and will change with Classical Warrior, so it's not a huge deal, just a
note to those who might be considering using Thracians (whether Reg or
Irreg is irrelevant).

[Todd Kaeser]

Kelly,

I'm sure many others would have as well - English
knights?, Russian dregs?, Viking Bondi?.

Other armies have not faced knights.

Todd K

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Which Aztec army was it that faced elephants. . . ?
> I suspect the Aztecs would have ran screaming with
> abject terror from the first elephant they met on a
> battlefield!
>
> Kelly
>
> "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
> This is turning into another aimless screed
>
> >LOL, this is hysterically funny, "aimless screed",
> I gotta remember that one for use in other
> appropriate moments. Screed, great word.
>
> Aztecs or something don't
> really have a lot of punch *but* they can grind
> pretty fast.
>
> >Aztec Irr A in their various flavors (Warrior
> Priests, Otontin, Otomis) have amazing punch,
> particularly if you go with the 2HCT, JLS front
> rank, 1HCW, JLS second rank. Wonderful infantry and
> El killers, well, the latter a tad bit less so cuz
> of the rank restrictions of 1HCW against certain
> troop types but still the JLS and other weapons with
> Irr A will do. I'm still messing around with em and
> keep getting drawn into playing Tlaxcallans instead
> which has an entirely different dynamic.
>
> Fax is 203-737-2812; I'm just curious, I've
> never actually seen it. Thanks!]
>
> >Can do that tomorrow.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 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!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[scott holder]

I'm sure many others would have as well - English
knights?, Russian dregs?, Viking Bondi?.
Other armies have not faced knights.

> Which Aztec army was it that faced elephants. . . ?
> I suspect the Aztecs would have ran screaming with
> abject terror from the first elephant they met on a
> battlefield!

Okay, this is a prime example of what I refer to as "popular wargamer
perception" about some aspect of ancient/medieval warfare that has no bearing on
the reality of the historical record. The whole "Aztec abject fear of horsies"
thing is highly overplayed, not unlike the issue of stirrups and their impact on
warfare or Viking success against anybody other than defenseless monks and
comely peasant girls.

Read *carefully* *all* the accounts of Cortez' two year (or seasons) campaign
against the Aztecs and you'll find that the Aztecs adapted quite well to their
new opponents. Remember, Cortez' contingent was damn near killed in
Tenochtitlan and he had to beat a hasty retreat. Not exactly the result you'd
expect from a warrior culture living in abject fear of 4 footed creatures. What
is true is that Aztec infantry was susceptible to mounted charges, but not
because they always ran away in terror. It's because they didn't have effective
weapons to counter a cav charge that would come on them before they had a chance
to soften up the target with loads of missile fire AND they didn't have
effective H-T-H weapons to deal with the mounted charge, both aspects which were
carefully sculpted into NWW. Another example parallel to this is the effective
of gunpowder on the Aztecs. Yes, the Spanish accounts suggest it scared the
beejesus outta them the first time but thereafter, the Spanish talk about Aztec
tactics designed to mitigate the effects of the small cannons and such (they
would open up their order or attack from various angles so as to minimize the
cannon's effect). If the Spanish were noting this, it must have been fairly
obvious.

These peoples were really smart and had a highly evolved military culture at all
levels. In many ways, they were not unlike the Romans or the Mongols, yes the
technology was different but the end result, in their specific context was the
same.

WARRIOR, and games like it, assume certain things and one of them is the fact
that some things and their real effect on the battlefield have been overstated
and that professional (or other types of warrior cultures) military systems were
adept at ackknowledging certain innovations they faced at one time or another.

scott

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

>I'm sure many others would have as well - English
>knights?, Russian dregs?, Viking Bondi?.
>Other armies have not faced knights.
>
>> Which Aztec army was it that faced elephants. . . ?
>> I suspect the Aztecs would have ran screaming with
>> abject terror from the first elephant they met on a
>> battlefield!
>
>Okay, this is a prime example of what I refer to as "popular wargamer
perception" about some aspect of ancient/medieval warfare that has no bearing on
the reality of the historical record.  The whole "Aztec abject fear of horsies"
thing is highly overplayed, not unlike the issue of stirrups and their impact on
warfare or Viking success against anybody other than defenseless monks and
comely peasant girls.
>
>Read *carefully* *all* the accounts of Cortez' two year (or seasons) campaign
against the Aztecs and you'll find that the Aztecs adapted quite well to their
new opponents.  Remember, Cortez' contingent was damn near killed in
Tenochtitlan and he had to beat a hasty retreat.  Not exactly the result you'd
expect from a warrior culture living in abject fear of 4 footed creatures.  What
is true is that Aztec infantry was susceptible to mounted charges, but not
because they always ran away in terror.  It's because they didn't have effective
weapons to counter a cav charge that would come on them before they had a chance
to soften up the target with loads of missile fire AND they didn't have
effective H-T-H weapons to deal with the mounted charge, both aspects which were
carefully sculpted into NWW.  Another example parallel to this is the effective
of gunpowder on the Aztecs.  Yes, the Spanish accounts suggest it scared the
beejesus outta them the first time but thereafter, the Spanish talk about Aztec
tactics designed to mitigate the effects of the small cannons and such (they
would open up their order or attack from various angles so as to minimize the
cannon's effect).  If the Spanish were noting this, it must have been fairly
obvious.
>
>These peoples were really smart and had a highly evolved military culture at
all levels.  In many ways, they were not unlike the Romans or the Mongols, yes
the technology was different but the end result, in their specific context was
the same.
>
>WARRIOR, and games like it, assume certain things and one of them is the fact
that some things and their real effect on the battlefield have been overstated
and that professional (or other types of warrior cultures) military systems were
adept at ackknowledging certain innovations they faced at one time or another.
>
>scott
>

Scott
There is Great Truth in your above example, which can be applied to any and all
wargames rules, beyond the title of this thread, and Aztecs.
The First Time does not mean Every Time.

John the OFM



>
>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]

Todd,
At least the Vikings would have heard of such beasts. The Aztecs upon
seeing men upon horses believed them to be mythical monsters and were terrified
at the prospect of fighting such beasts. But ELEPHANTS would definitely go
beyond anything like a little thing like terror for them imho.
Kelly


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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