Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/2/2004 05:36:50 Central Daylight Time, mailto
mikek@... writes:

"A model represents up to 25 . . . heavy chariots, or up to 50 light
chariots . . . ."


This suggests to me that a 25:1 scale of models to chariots wpould
make sense across the board, representing 2 -4 ranks of chariots
depending on their intervals.

But what I would like is a brief explanation of the actual
rationale. >>
It is a mixture between:
-the effect a given number of chariots of X type would have across Y frontage
-the space they 'fit' in
-the numbers that actually fought together in representational battles

The 'up to' qualifier is deliberately loose. As one example, it would take
less 4 horse light chariots to produce the same effect than 2-horse....

J


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

After scores of messages on charge mechanics that I'm pleased have
led to a good result, how about a simple conceptual question?

"A model represents up to 25 . . . heavy chariots, or up to 50 light
chariots . . . ."

I realize the origin of this scale may be lost in what the youth of
today would consider the distant mists of a past century, but I'd
like to understand why these 2 ratios are used and why are they
different as they are? Is this driven simply by the usual figure
ratio of 38-85:1 related to number of crew figures, by
frontage/ranks deep considerations, or something else?

2 figures would represent at minimum 76 men. This suggests figures,
rather than models, as an explanation for the scale. The Chariot
archers shoot as 2 figures, effectively representing their high
potential volume of archery.

Elements have a 64 pace frontage. This would allow about 15
chariots in line nearly hub-to-hub, or 10 at small intervals.

This suggests to me that a 25:1 scale of models to chariots wpould
make sense across the board, representing 2 -4 ranks of chariots
depending on their intervals.

But what I would like is a brief explanation of the actual
rationale.

Thanks,

Mike