Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 1:53:37 PM Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:
Now, for the inevitable question, which I will have the temerity
to ask. From a game design standpoint, WHY do our games that are
supposed to accurately simulate ancient and medieval warfare so
obviously place a premium on a group of weapons that seldom decided
battles?
Amongst close friends I have often described the game as having more of an
early 18th century flavor. Fire power does not rule as it did in the ACW but
both sides typically tend to draw up and fire until a weakness is observed.
Mounted (sans the heaviest types) charging steady missles is a highly risky
proposition in our game. There are many things that some one of us may disagree
with about the game although it is rare to find a feature of the game that many
disagree with. Maybe that's its charm. Like life it has it compromises.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

Hmmm, no wonder those greeks started armoring their soldiers....lol

but the point, in my humble opinion, is that shooters have an
ahistorical edge, and every seasoned tournament player knows it.
I am one of those and I do not, for one, agree.

What I will agree with is that close order foot is 'too slow' in Warrior.
Not that 80p is unrealistic, but that 80p has one very unfortunate
characteristic not shared by any other troop type. It can't charge after a
march without
the enemy's cooperation. (HI marches to 240p, other guy sits, HI approaches
80p, still no charge..).
In addition, it cannot 'catch' LMI/LHI, which is the real issue you are
discussing. MI Spartans would care nothing of Kardakes shooting if they could
nail
them in a charge.

I considered 'changing' close order foot to 120p in the open, while keeping
its terrain difficulties. The issue, in 2000 as now, is that that is such a
fundamental 'change' that there is no way to properly playtest the impacts in
under a year or two. Given that, no matter how much I want Warrior to stand on
its own, our core player base is made up of old 7th players, and this was too
much of a change to make on both the grounds of getting Warrior out before
2005 and hugely impacting player army choice.

If a genie appeared and granted me one Warrior wish, it would be to allow me
to make this change, which would require a spontaneous and immediate full
playtest report based on a 1000 genie-played games that only took the blink of
an
eye and a magical muzzling of all whines about rules changes.

What *can* be done, is for those who are predisposed to, to play games using
this as an x-rule (which for all the various rules complaints out there, no
one makes use of). Like EHC skirmishing, I get a lot of periodic whines about
it, but I never get a batch of ten playtest reports on the impact on the game.
I suggest those who are motivated to see close order foot take a more
dominant role play games with 120p movement and record the results and send them
to
me. Play a tourney with that rule in effect and see what happens.

No one, especially me, says that all games or events need to be 14.0/NASAMW
standard. Rather than try to verbally convince someone of the need for change,
I would recommend building a case based on factual game results of the impact
of the change.

Jon


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

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Good report.
>
> In the 15mm teams all of the armies were shooting armies. >
> Shooting has always been a way to dominate in the game and it
appears
> to be an effective method in DBM as well (Kevin Donovan, #1 DBM
> player, plays armies that have lots of shooting).
>
> I think serious tournament players will continue to gravitate to
these
> armies.
>
> Larry


I couldn't agree more. It was this way in TOG, and the situation
has become even more pronounced in Warrior. This now seems to be
obvious to all but the most casual player (witness Larry and Mark's
comments).

Now, for the inevitable question, which I will have the temerity
to ask. From a game design standpoint, WHY do our games that are
supposed to accurately simulate ancient and medieval warfare so
obviously place a premium on a group of weapons that seldom decided
battles? No one ever shot Alexander, Caesar, or the Swiss to pieces, and
it seldom happened to knight armies or dark age armies either. Shooting
was usually no more than a harrying affair, at most designed to disorder
melee formations that then decided battles in hand to hand combat. That
is NOT what we're playing on the table, as witnessed by the fact that the
tactics of people like Chris D'Amour are considered unorthodox (although
not wholly ineffective because of his skill as a player) by any who
seriously wish to win in tournament play.

All of the recent simulation systems (not just Warrior), when
depicting a shock melee army against, say, Ottomans or Burmese, or
Midianites, or Persians, more closely resemble World War I Germans
machine-gunning hapless cavalry/infantry charges than what actually took
place (the missile armies usually shot and ran due to low combat morale
and/or poor leadership). Sure there are contra-examples like Crassus
getting waxed by the Parthians, but the point is that these were the
exceptions, rather than the rule.

I realize nothing will be done about this in this or any other
extant game system, and I am not whining or complaining. However, I hope I
may be permitted to ask, again from a game design standpoint, WHY these
design choices were made, and where, if anywhere, Larry and Mark (and
every other Warrior player I know) are somehow wrong in concluding that if
you want to win, you'd better bring a lot of missile power. Thanks.


Greek

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 2:56:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

> Now, for the inevitable question, which I will have the temerity
> to ask. From a game design standpoint, WHY do our games that are
> supposed to accurately simulate ancient and medieval warfare so
> obviously place a premium on a group of weapons that seldom decided
> battles? >>

Like Agincourt or Crecy? Hastings or Adrianople? lol

First, let's not all overeact to Mark's post. Players win battles, not armies.
The top 6 or 8 or whatever players in an event are good players and didn't just
win because they chose the 'right armies'. You also can't draw major
conclusions from one event - too many individual variables happening. It is
also incorrect to draw 'historical' conclusions from open events.

<<No one ever shot Alexander, Caesar, or the Swiss to pieces, and
> it seldom happened to knight armies or dark age armies either. Shooting
> was usually no more than a harrying affair, at most designed to disorder
> melee formations that then decided battles in hand to hand combat. That
> is NOT what we're playing on the table, as witnessed by the fact that the
> tactics of people like Chris D'Amour are considered unorthodox (although
> not wholly ineffective because of his skill as a player) by any who
> seriously wish to win in tournament play.>>

Chris *is* unorthodox, but not for the reasons you think. lol. Mike and I took
48 bowmen, tis true, but we had 48 spearmen and 54 LMI and 36 knights and 28 non
missile LC. Hardly an all-shooting army. Dave and Frank had HYWE, true, but
their K won their games, not their LB. and so on.

> All of the recent simulation systems (not just Warrior), when
> depicting a shock melee army against, say, Ottomans or Burmese, or
> Midianites, or Persians, more closely resemble World War I Germans
> machine-gunning hapless cavalry/infantry charges than what actually took
> place (the missile armies usually shot and ran due to low combat morale
> and/or poor leadership).>>

Open comps between non-historical opponents are NOT the standard by which
Warrior rules and lists are written. There will always be some crazy stuff
happening when knights meet biblicals and there isn't a lot you can ask the
rules to do about that.

My suggestion - run and/or play in more theme events. The Warrior rules and
lists are tested and balanced in-period.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 18:43:59 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:
At the risk of being it being perceived as what my son would call an
obvious suck-up move, let me say, Jon, that I think this is a very
reasonable, well thought out, and professional response, better than
any I've ever gotten from any game designer of any kind before. >>
Before someone else says it - clearly you've never met me in person...lol

Seriously, I am glad you see things that way. Who says this job is
thankless...?
Your
thoughtfulness and willingness to participate in historical
discussions like this without ego and in a real spirit of
scholarship are much appreciated by those of us who see this more as
a historical/intellectual exercise than a competitive sport. Thanks.>>
I make no claim to historical expertise in the time period you enjoy - my
periods/areas are Central Asia/Far East and the 100 Years War, with some Roman
and Crusades dabbling thrown in. But I do know the mechanics of marching and
fighting and shooting, both on the ground and on the table. What I believe to
be true is that the desire to make close foot slower than loose/open was not
balanced against what was possible from a charging/evading standpoint when the
engine was originally designed. I was able to fix most of the things that
didn't work about it, but this one I had to let go....

Jon


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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
<snip good discussion>

My 2 quattloos. As a very competitive, yet relaxed player, I play to
win with fun.

I would suggest anyone running a non-powerhouse (read no Super heavy
and no massed missile fire) learn adaptive tactics. Terrain comes
instantly to mind. Forcing archers to come and find you often works,
as does using shooting decoys (shieldess skirmishing LC are excellent
for this). In most cases, as soon as he is shooting tired, he is
meat for close order/mounted attacks. Use ditches, TF, artillery,
forrests, hills, any and everything tactically. All those
longbow/2HCW and SHK armies are worthless in the woods against eagar
peltast LMI with J/sh. If you face heavier kniggits, then dismount
and hold terrain.

For the Greeks, I've looks at many options to make it win. I think
the way to go is a mix of 12E units of D and 4E units of B troops all
in 4 deep columns. Run them like Revolutionary French armies, in
columns. No mounted will charge across a ditch to hit the LTS, so
make him sit there and shoot you halted...hey you already halted ;)

Terrain, is there anything it can't do?

the key is, as indicated above, to break up his firing line. The
secret to the shooting armies is massive fire. We're talking the 24
shooters and above range, not the piddly 12@1 LI crap. The shooting
army wants to make you waver or halt, so he can shoot you disordered
and charge you halted. If he can't generate enough firepower within
arc to halt everyone, then his second bound of combat will be
painful. Remember, with close order it is never the initial hit
(usually) it is the who hits second with the best odds. It is hard
but doable.

Wanax

[Todd Schneider]

From my point of view, unless a player absolutely
loves an army (no matter what it's drawbacks) he's
going to do what he can to win a tournament. In
Opens, at least from going through the lists, that
means taking an Army that has lots of Knights, and
lots of ranged firepower, which is why I think you see
a lot of Medieval lists in Opens.

Now, the counters to that are Units that make it hard
for Knights to be used effectively, Pike and Spear
Blocks, and Elephants.

<<<Now, for the inevitable question, which I will have
the temerity to ask. From a game design standpoint,
WHY do our games that are supposed to accurately
simulate ancient and medieval warfare so obviously
place a premium on a group of weapons that seldom
decided battles? No one ever shot Alexander, Caesar,
or the Swiss to pieces, and it seldom happened to
knight armies or dark age armies either.>>>

Well, Alexander never faced the Silla Koreans, or the
Hundred Years War English. The Swiss never faced Han
Chariots, or Mongols. Caesar never had to face
SHK's...If anything the ahistorical matchups you get
in an Open are whats good and bad about warrior IMO,
you get to play "what-If" and see what happens, and
you get a lot of results that don't "feel"
historically accurate.


The only way around this IMO right now is to stop
having Opens, and play Themes exclusivley, and going
one step farther and restricting the lists that can be
used in the theme. But where's the fun in that?

My Two Cents,
Todd

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:25:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> I would suggest anyone running a non-powerhouse (read no Super heavy
> and no massed missile fire) learn adaptive tactics. Terrain comes
> instantly to mind.>>

Although with the other guy placing clear and roads, this can be problematic as
a solution. And watch for those marshes...lol

<< Forcing archers to come and find you often works,
> as does using shooting decoys (shieldess skirmishing LC are excellent
> for this).>>

LC are easy to disorder with shooting and then they are rallying disordered and
shot again for two wavers, something we both did and had done to us this
weekend. I would not recommend a lot of fancy LC stuff to a new player until he
had the basics down. They can be great, but are usually the first way a new
player loses a game.

In most cases, as soon as he is shooting tired, he is
> meat for close order/mounted attacks. >>

Of course if you are shieldless LC and have stayed out of his ability to
disorder you, he is not shooting tired as he is too smart to waste the shots and
also doing something useful elsewhere.

<< Use ditches, TF, artillery,
> forrests, hills, any and everything tactically.>>

Artillery are definitely not for new players. Again, clear and roads make it
too problematic to use terrain as a reliable defense in the center, and that
includes TFs. That is deliberate.

<< All those
> longbow/2HCW and SHK armies are worthless in the woods against eagar
> peltast LMI with J/sh. If you face heavier kniggits, then
> dismount
> and hold terrain.>>

Dismounting is a technique, but has to be done carefully. You have to time
getting out of the dismounting disorder right. LB is a 0 against SHI and those
SHI are often in 2E units....

My recommended counters to massed fire are to split fire and combine the right
two units on the archer. The one game where this really failed us, they had a
more carefully designed reserve than we did and we had to committ too much to
the initial battle. Something I am looking into closely....lol

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:32:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:

> In
> Opens, at least from going through the lists, that
> means taking an Army that has lots of Knights, and
> lots of ranged firepower, which is why I think you see
> a lot of Medieval lists in Opens.>>

5 of the 16 armies in the 25mm teams were K armies, 6 if you count the very late
Byzantines. I think you will find that this is actually the same or less as a
percentage of previous 25mm events.

Having 3 HYWE is no surpise as it did so well in the NICT this past year and
more people have that army (or can make it) than have Cilla Koreans....lol

These things come in cycles. the key is to look into the future and see where
the cycle will go next.... :)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:25:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > I would suggest anyone running a non-powerhouse (read no Super
heavy
> > and no massed missile fire) learn adaptive tactics. Terrain
comes
> > instantly to mind.>>
>
> Although with the other guy placing clear and roads, this can be
problematic as a solution. And watch for those marshes...lol

If he can close down 1/3 of the board, then the chances of splitting
shooter fire increase due to proximity of supporting units.


>
> << Forcing archers to come and find you often works,
> > as does using shooting decoys (shieldess skirmishing LC are
excellent
> > for this).>>
>
> LC are easy to disorder with shooting and then they are rallying
disordered and shot again for two wavers, something we both did and
had done to us this weekend. I would not recommend a lot of fancy LC
stuff to a new player until he had the basics down. They can be
great, but are usually the first way a new player loses a game.

You are right Jon, and I certainly wouldn't suggest LC units to act
alone. They work best in tandum and take time to learn correctly.
Certainly I wouldn't allow a single unit to get shot twice in a row
if possible. I was just trying to work within the confines of the
hoplite list possibilities.

>
> In most cases, as soon as he is shooting tired, he is
> > meat for close order/mounted attacks. >>
>
> Of course if you are shieldless LC and have stayed out of his
ability to disorder you, he is not shooting tired as he is too smart
to waste the shots and also doing something useful elsewhere.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say LC do anything
but catch arrows and put shooting fatigues on the shooters. I didn't
mean the LC attack the shooters at all. Just sit there and take a
hit, then rally back with massive casualties. Nice thing about this
game is a unit can take 14 CPF or 5 CPF, the penalty is the same. 1
turn to reorder then back into shooting range to eat some more
arrows ;)

>
> << Use ditches, TF, artillery,
> > forrests, hills, any and everything tactically.>>
>
> Artillery are definitely not for new players. Again, clear and
roads make it too problematic to use terrain as a reliable defense in
the center, and that includes TFs. That is deliberate.

Yes, I wouldn't suggest it. however, again, I'm trying to work
within the hoplite list options. Artillery is about the only
shooting option he'll have besides a few LI.

>
> << All those
> > longbow/2HCW and SHK armies are worthless in the woods against
eagar
> > peltast LMI with J/sh. If you face heavier kniggits, then
> > dismount
> > and hold terrain.>>
>
> Dismounting is a technique, but has to be done carefully. You have
to time getting out of the dismounting disorder right. LB is a 0
against SHI and those SHI are often in 2E units....

He would most likely dismount as HI being HC. He would be better
standing in the woods vs shooters as HI than as HC :)

>
> My recommended counters to massed fire are to split fire and
combine the right two units on the archer.

And this was my final comment, though perhaps not as plain. Do not
allow massed firepower above 20 shooters on any one unit.

>
> Jon

An interesting discussion. This love of missile fire among top
players certainly doesnt seem to be the case here in OZ. It is my
impression most of the top players here favour infantry heavy combat
armies (hellenistic and punic types along with a good range of others)
When knight armies are used (as in our only 15mm comp at canberra)
they tend to be the ones that feature good infantry combat support
(we see spanish of various sorts to get the moogs)WE do have a
midianite player and a regular hundred years war player as well as
the occaisional mexican or burmese of some sort but they perform
inconsistently in general. I personally feel the simple solution to
the threat of firepower is numbers. It is very difficult to shoot
close order foot in sufficient numbers to a halt when they dont have
a missile weapon of their own. It can be even more difficult to halt
the LMI as it will (at least sometimes) approach the enemy in
skirmish. It is also virtually impossible to get a shot on the
vulnerable cavalry types present in these armies when they sit in the
gaps behind a wall of pike or longspear. I realise there are obvious
counter arguments to all of this but in my experience as
generalisations go they hold fairly true. I can personally say i'm
usually quite happy to find myself in competition and fighting an
army that relies chiefly on firepower (or firepower and charging
cavalry) In the last few comps i've used Pre-feudal Scot, Alexandrian
Imperial, and Holy Roman Imperial. Black out the sun for all i care!

Martin

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 4:38:53 PM Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
In my opinion, too many troops are classed as LHI/LMI, rather than
close/open order ... and charging out of skirmish should be largely a
tactic used by mounted skirmishers.
or list dependent. But I agree with you completely. I think that it started
as a game mechanic that was originally designed to aid the huns, parthians,
asiatics etc and was developed as a rule that applied to all skirmishers. A
mistake in my opinion that might have been rectified earlier, but alas so much
water under the bridge that like time will never be recovered.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

Never one to let an old wound heal (lol), Greg writes...
In my opinion, too many troops are classed as LHI/LMI, rather than
close/open order ... and charging out of skirmish should be largely a
tactic used by mounted skirmishers.>>
Chris adds...

or list dependent. But I agree with you completely. I think that it started
as a game mechanic that was originally designed to aid the huns, parthians,
asiatics etc and was developed as a rule that applied to all skirmishers. A
mistake in my opinion that might have been rectified earlier, but alas so
much
water under the bridge that like time will never be recovered.>>

Just because it is a day for me to reminisce about the frenzied days of
initial Warrior writing I will throw kerosene on this should-be-out fire...
:)

I gave a great deal of thought and research to this issue. There was enough
evidence of what we call LMI/LHI taking advantage of a weakened foe for me to
not sweat it as far as history goes.

From a mechanical standpoint, the idea that somehow the ability to charge out
of skirmish formation as a foot troop makes them inordinately powerful is
incorrect, in my opinion.

We are really talking about missile troops as JLSers can go into skirmish
only under very restrictive conditions. We aren't talking about LMI/LHI
charging
LI out of skirmish as that ability should certainly be there and them having
a decided advantage in a skirmish fight with LI is quite appropriate. We
aren't talking about Irr LMI/LHI doing this as anything that might give Irr
loose
order missile troops some kind of useful role should be seen as a good
thing...lol

We are talking about dual-armed regular archers here, methinks. And just who
are they charging that is making us fret? Not mounted, as the mounted
charging them would cancel their charge and disorder them, to say nothing of the
waver test. Not irregular foot as they would also cancel the skirmish charge
when impetuous. Regular foot, maybe? Concerned that they have to choose in the
charge phase with either charging the skirmisher or being hit in a charge? Or
the idea that in a regular on regular battle, the missile troop has the
flexibility of running or charging, while the other guy must charge or take
it...
Or maybe that the loose regular archer has this choice but a close regular
archer does not and this makes the loose order archer 'even better'....
Not sure, since none of these are even remotely a problem in actual game
play. I'd be interested to hear a specific case of where this is an issue...

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

Missile power is only part of the issue. Skirmish is another large
part.

In my opinion, too many troops are classed as LHI/LMI, rather than
close/open order ... and charging out of skirmish should be largely a
tactic used by mounted skirmishers.

Greg



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:25:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> spocksleftball@y... writes:
> >
> > > I would suggest anyone running a non-powerhouse (read no Super
> heavy
> > > and no massed missile fire) learn adaptive tactics. Terrain
> comes
> > > instantly to mind.>>
> >
> > Although with the other guy placing clear and roads, this can be
> problematic as a solution. And watch for those marshes...lol
>
> If he can close down 1/3 of the board, then the chances of
splitting
> shooter fire increase due to proximity of supporting units.
>
>
> >
> > << Forcing archers to come and find you often works,
> > > as does using shooting decoys (shieldess skirmishing LC are
> excellent
> > > for this).>>
> >
> > LC are easy to disorder with shooting and then they are rallying
> disordered and shot again for two wavers, something we both did and
> had done to us this weekend. I would not recommend a lot of fancy
LC
> stuff to a new player until he had the basics down. They can be
> great, but are usually the first way a new player loses a game.
>
> You are right Jon, and I certainly wouldn't suggest LC units to act
> alone. They work best in tandum and take time to learn correctly.
> Certainly I wouldn't allow a single unit to get shot twice in a row
> if possible. I was just trying to work within the confines of the
> hoplite list possibilities.
>
> >
> > In most cases, as soon as he is shooting tired, he is
> > > meat for close order/mounted attacks. >>
> >
> > Of course if you are shieldless LC and have stayed out of his
> ability to disorder you, he is not shooting tired as he is too
smart
> to waste the shots and also doing something useful elsewhere.
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say LC do anything
> but catch arrows and put shooting fatigues on the shooters. I
didn't
> mean the LC attack the shooters at all. Just sit there and take a
> hit, then rally back with massive casualties. Nice thing about
this
> game is a unit can take 14 CPF or 5 CPF, the penalty is the same. 1
> turn to reorder then back into shooting range to eat some more
> arrows
>
> >
> > << Use ditches, TF, artillery,
> > > forrests, hills, any and everything tactically.>>
> >
> > Artillery are definitely not for new players. Again, clear and
> roads make it too problematic to use terrain as a reliable defense
in
> the center, and that includes TFs. That is deliberate.
>
> Yes, I wouldn't suggest it. however, again, I'm trying to work
> within the hoplite list options. Artillery is about the only
> shooting option he'll have besides a few LI.
>
> >
> > << All those
> > > longbow/2HCW and SHK armies are worthless in the woods against
> eagar
> > > peltast LMI with J/sh. If you face heavier kniggits, then
> > > dismount
> > > and hold terrain.>>
> >
> > Dismounting is a technique, but has to be done carefully. You
have
> to time getting out of the dismounting disorder right. LB is a 0
> against SHI and those SHI are often in 2E units....
>
> He would most likely dismount as HI being HC. He would be better
> standing in the woods vs shooters as HI than as HC
>
> >
> > My recommended counters to massed fire are to split fire and
> combine the right two units on the archer.
>
> And this was my final comment, though perhaps not as plain. Do not
> allow massed firepower above 20 shooters on any one unit.
>
> >
> > Jon

[Bill Chriss]

> Open comps between non-historical opponents are NOT the standard
by which Warrior rules and lists are written. There will always be
some crazy stuff happening when knights meet biblicals and there
isn't a lot you can ask the rules to do about that.
>
> My suggestion - run and/or play in more theme events. The
Warrior rules and lists are tested and balanced in-period.
>
> Jon

This has been a very interesting discussion.

I have been thinking about Jon's reply. So, I checked one in-period
matchup- SPartan hoplites v. Persians.

Spartans cost at least 5 pts per man (they should be at least reg. B
MI). Cheesy Kardakes, on the other hand, Irr C LMI with JLS, Sh, and
B, cost only 4. So let's just say we have a 24 figure (6E) hoplite
block of Spartans (130 pts) faced by a cheaper, crummy 24 figure
(8E) Kardake unit (121 pts)with 4 elements in each of the first two
ranks. They march to 6 inches away. Next bound, the Spartans sing
the paean and plan to destroy these jokers as they normally would
have in any battle you wish to cite. Next bound, they approach 80
paces. Oops, the cheaper, lower morale, less well-trained KArdakes
shoot 12 (long range) @2 for 1 CPF. Next bound, the Spartans keep
coming 80 paces more. Kardakes go into skirmish and shoot. With even
dice, its 18 @ 2 or 1 cpf. Spartans charge, Kardakes evade. Next
bound, Kardakes rally in block (let's say they can't counter into
skirmish). They shoot on even dice 24@2 or 2cpf. Spartans must halt
and continue being shot to death, or else test waver. They test and
pass. If they fail, forget it...toast. Kardakes charge impetuously,
contacting on three elements frontage. They do 13@ 3, minus 2(facing
LTS)+1 JLS +2 impetuous+1 charging= 52(2 cpf). The Spartans will do
18@ 3= 45 (2 per=4fatigue). Spartans recoil tired. Kardakes follow
up tired. Now Kardakes get overtlap. Second round is Kardakes
support shot 12@-2=6, H-t-h=18@4=54 for a total of 60 (2 cpf).
Spartans 18@3 minus 1 for tired=18@2=36 or 1cpf=2fatigue. Note that
if the Kardakes roll up one in combat, they'll disorder the
Spartans. The Spartans would have to roll up 3 to disorder the
Persians.

After 6 boumds of combat, the cheaper lower moreale Persians have 6
fatigue points and will keep moving forward absent an unusual die
roll. The Spartans have 8 fatigue points. You could force march the
Spartans and save one bound, but then you'd have 10 fatigue points,
and it's more likely that the Persians will exhaust you before game
end than vice versa.

I realize that the answer to this is to make the shooters split
their fire, but with what? With these kind of point matchups, the
Greek guy quickly runs out of soak-off units because cheaper
opposing units occupy his big bruisers.

I also appreciate the suggestions about terrain and strategems. As I
have said here before, any Greek player must know these things, and
I humbly submit that I have lit off more pigs, placed more minor
rivers, and rolled down more avalanches than anyone else you can
think of. My point is that Spartans and Marian legionaires shouldn't
have to resort to such things against Persian Kardake bowmen or
unshielded foot archers. There are lots of ways to try to even the
score, but the point, in my humble opinion, is that shooters have an
ahistorical edge, and every seasoned tournament player knows it.

By the way, I know what an andron is, but what is a wanax andron?
(There are no W's in Greek).

Greek