Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

You do realize, Ewan, that the troops in the lists are the way they are
because that is what we and a great many others believe these armies actually
had? :)


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

[Ewan McNay]

Jon,

Picts? I don't see your joy . If the MI warriors could be
double-armed, then yes, but Irr LMI LTS, JLS seem almost a little like a
liability: better against cav (but only in the first round) than JLS-only,
but worse aggainst foot (because impetuous LTS does nothing). [On a
separate note: massed CB for the picts? That *does* seem odd, Scott!]]
So, I don't see anything to elevate this from the mass of barbarian
armies. What am I missing?

Going back to biblical for a second: the pictish chariots reminded me of
the massed 4hLCh available in Late Hebrew. Now *there's* an army to kill
LMI with! I'm actually a huge fan of this troop type, as it works well
against both foot and most mounted; it has a problem with very heavy
mounted but can just skirmish and run away! Almost unkillable. I believe
that the Hebrews get something like 24 of these - now that would be a
wondrous sight and very, very effective.

Back to dark Age, with book in hand, some more brief commentary on armies
that caught my eye. Romano-British I've mentioned before. Early
Byzantine I have to correct myself on a little: if one takes the option of
separating HC lancers from LC units, the minima are more reasonable and
one can get a very manouvreable force of high-morale cav, backed by some
decent foot units. So my revised verdict is that this is a player -
better than the Maurikians which get you back into massive minima of
compulsory HC L, Sh (what does one do with these against a knight army? I
know, find a flank, but...)

I think that there is actually a decent IrrA Arab Conquest force in the
list, at least against the right opponent. Being able to avoid having to
take LMI or MI fanatic bowmen really helps . I'd prefer Arab Imperial,
though (note to List Ho: the subgenerals' costs are wrong on this list, I
believe), which can be taken as a small but potent force in the late
period, which has 4 or 5 units of overpowering Reg LHI (in the case of the
Marines, LTS, JLS, B, Sh - now there's overarmed!). 'Suffers' again from
high HC lancer minima, but in this case I would take many as IrregC and
run 12-man units, to lower costs a little. Everyone else can be Reg,
although the Arab foot may be better as IrrC, and so the army can dance
happily.

Andalusian has, I think, fewer spearmen than previously available, and no
option for the regular Christian cavalry except as a CinC's one-unit
guard. This combination of weakenings makes th list a lot worse, and I
would not now take it (it also misses the decent LMI that used to be
available, if I recall correctly).

Feudal Spanish would be much more interesting if the almughavars could be
HTW - is this a typo, Scott? Even then, there are only 12 elements
available, but they're pretty nasty; together with the IrrA HC (although
wouldn't it be nice to have IrrA K?) they add some nice strike forces to
the solid MI line. Having EHK available as an option is a good second
list item, as would the Maranid ally be.

Thematic Byzantine are the guys with the fire syphoneers. But it really
would have to be built and played around getting that unit to fire on your
enemy target of choice. If not quite that prepared to be single-minded,
this is again an OK list if you like HC L (sense a theme here?) but not
otherwise; all the foot can be RegD, which helps cheapen them
considerably, and one can get a longish line of skutatoi and LMI psiloi
for your cavalry to be based around.

Vikings i dissed earlier. My point on the LMI axemen is still valid; the
other problem for me, though, is that the way I would ike to run the army
is my maxing out on the bowmen and making them all MI rather than LMI (or
possibly HI). This has the effect (especially with the way-expensive
hirdmen bowmen, although the armour downgrade for rear ranks is good) or
making a very short line, and that's tough to take with such an
unmanouvreable force. Still, I seem to be in a more tolerant mood this
evening, as I would grant that with care that configuration would still be
playable; I think it would cover about 3 1/2 feet of table, though, so
lots and lots of terrain needed (15mm; scale up for 25mm, where it might
be marginally improved).

Russ again I noted as goodish; it's hurt by the new need to take a
Varangian Ally to get the rough terrain troops, though. At least no
comulsory axemen .

Pre-Feudals: I was right on the increased MI minimum, but wrong on the HC
change (the Normans are still there). Also, though, one is going to need
to take at least two Ally-generals (probably Highland and Galwegian) to
get enough LMI; and there are newly-compulsory lowland thegns, very
expensive and a liability; and the IrrA LI are indeed gone, and so on.
Maybe still playable but much diminished.

Anyway, that should give some rough comments. I'd still like to hear the
thoughts of others, though...

e

[Ewan McNay]

Yes, of course. I assumed that you knew that.

And in the historical section of my brain, that's interesting, but has no
impact on game viability .
e

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:

> You do realize, Ewan, that the troops in the lists are the way they are
> because that is what we and a great many others believe these armies actually
> had?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

Rather than go over the ones Ewan has already gone over, I will add a few armies
that are of interest to me.

2. Picts - I think this could be a fun list, but wish the Saxons Warriors all
had HTW and were mixed in 50/50 units with the Saxon Peasant Spearmen. You can
still make a nice LCh army, and an army with a nice shock foot contingent.

4. Merovingian Frank - This army doesn't look too awful, providing you buy the
Romano-Gallic guys. It reminds me a bit of an Early German army with its large
units of good Irregular foot mixed with Regular terrain troops. I big unit if
Saxons armed with HTW + JLS in the first two ranks backed by two ranks of JLS
only, would make a nice lead body.

5. Italian Ostrogoth - Call me deranged, but I like this army quite a bit. Lots
of L armed cavalry, which I think can be used effectively, Huns to help you get
rid of the enemy screen, and probably three, 8-stand units of Franks with HTW.
The unreliability of the Frankish general is a pain. You have some terrain
challenges, but I think with the ability to have four 240p sections of ditched
palisade, you can do double duty by cancelling out problem terrain and
protecting vulnerable troops.

6. Romano-British - This is no real surprise. My only concern would be if I
didnt' get the terrain I wanted. One might get stuck putting some vulnerable
things in harms way. There is always the palisades at least.

9. Breton / 10.Early Lombard - These are good armies, as long as you are
fighting in a flat field.

12. Early Byzantine - VERY playable!

18. Carolingian Frank - Quite frankly (pun intended) I'm a bit disappointed with
this army, an army that should match up better against its historical opponents.

29. Norman/Western Frank - I like this army quite a bit, in spite of Boyd's
baying dog, . I think a good job was done in giving this army a bit of a
boost. I fail to understand why the Milites can't be upgraded to HK as a late
option on this list, but I guess you could go to 33. Norman Conquest Welsh, if
that was a deal breaker.

Thanks .... Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: ewan.mcnay@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Dark Age redux


Jon,

Picts? I don't see your joy . If the MI warriors could be
double-armed, then yes, but Irr LMI LTS, JLS seem almost a little like a
liability: better against cav (but only in the first round) than JLS-only,
but worse aggainst foot (because impetuous LTS does nothing). [On a
separate note: massed CB for the picts? That *does* seem odd, Scott!]]
So, I don't see anything to elevate this from the mass of barbarian
armies. What am I missing?

Going back to biblical for a second: the pictish chariots reminded me of
the massed 4hLCh available in Late Hebrew. Now *there's* an army to kill
LMI with! I'm actually a huge fan of this troop type, as it works well
against both foot and most mounted; it has a problem with very heavy
mounted but can just skirmish and run away! Almost unkillable. I believe
that the Hebrews get something like 24 of these - now that would be a
wondrous sight and very, very effective.

Back to dark Age, with book in hand, some more brief commentary on armies
that caught my eye. Romano-British I've mentioned before. Early
Byzantine I have to correct myself on a little: if one takes the option of
separating HC lancers from LC units, the minima are more reasonable and
one can get a very manouvreable force of high-morale cav, backed by some
decent foot units. So my revised verdict is that this is a player -
better than the Maurikians which get you back into massive minima of
compulsory HC L, Sh (what does one do with these against a knight army? I
know, find a flank, but...)

I think that there is actually a decent IrrA Arab Conquest force in the
list, at least against the right opponent. Being able to avoid having to
take LMI or MI fanatic bowmen really helps . I'd prefer Arab Imperial,
though (note to List Ho: the subgenerals' costs are wrong on this list, I
believe), which can be taken as a small but potent force in the late
period, which has 4 or 5 units of overpowering Reg LHI (in the case of the
Marines, LTS, JLS, B, Sh - now there's overarmed!). 'Suffers' again from
high HC lancer minima, but in this case I would take many as IrregC and
run 12-man units, to lower costs a little. Everyone else can be Reg,
although the Arab foot may be better as IrrC, and so the army can dance
happily.

Andalusian has, I think, fewer spearmen than previously available, and no
option for the regular Christian cavalry except as a CinC's one-unit
guard. This combination of weakenings makes th list a lot worse, and I
would not now take it (it also misses the decent LMI that used to be
available, if I recall correctly).

Feudal Spanish would be much more interesting if the almughavars could be
HTW - is this a typo, Scott? Even then, there are only 12 elements
available, but they're pretty nasty; together with the IrrA HC (although
wouldn't it be nice to have IrrA K?) they add some nice strike forces to
the solid MI line. Having EHK available as an option is a good second
list item, as would the Maranid ally be.

Thematic Byzantine are the guys with the fire syphoneers. But it really
would have to be built and played around getting that unit to fire on your
enemy target of choice. If not quite that prepared to be single-minded,
this is again an OK list if you like HC L (sense a theme here?) but not
otherwise; all the foot can be RegD, which helps cheapen them
considerably, and one can get a longish line of skutatoi and LMI psiloi
for your cavalry to be based around.

Vikings i dissed earlier. My point on the LMI axemen is still valid; the
other problem for me, though, is that the way I would ike to run the army
is my maxing out on the bowmen and making them all MI rather than LMI (or
possibly HI). This has the effect (especially with the way-expensive
hirdmen bowmen, although the armour downgrade for rear ranks is good) or
making a very short line, and that's tough to take with such an
unmanouvreable force. Still, I seem to be in a more tolerant mood this
evening, as I would grant that with care that configuration would still be
playable; I think it would cover about 3 1/2 feet of table, though, so
lots and lots of terrain needed (15mm; scale up for 25mm, where it might
be marginally improved).

Russ again I noted as goodish; it's hurt by the new need to take a
Varangian Ally to get the rough terrain troops, though. At least no
comulsory axemen .

Pre-Feudals: I was right on the increased MI minimum, but wrong on the HC
change (the Normans are still there). Also, though, one is going to need
to take at least two Ally-generals (probably Highland and Galwegian) to
get enough LMI; and there are newly-compulsory lowland thegns, very
expensive and a liability; and the IrrA LI are indeed gone, and so on.
Maybe still playable but much diminished.

Anyway, that should give some rough comments. I'd still like to hear the
thoughts of others, though...

e


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



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.



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,
It's been a while since I've commented on this
list and I've been doing some reading on this subject
regarding Maurikian heavy cavalry. I recently
purchased Maurice's Strategikon(which btw is great
bathroom reading material! LOL!) and nowhere in it
does it detail that cavalry should be armed solely
with lance. To the contrary it argues for the Avar
lance and bow along with shield. I am curious(not
doubtful, merely curious) about the sources that were
employed for the early byzantines and Maurikian lists.
I have no doubt that quite a bit of scholarship went
into these lists and being a lover of history, I would
like to know which sources were adhered to that
brought the FHE list writers to the conclusion that
lancer cavalry was not bow armed in the Maurikian
period and possibly the earlier period. I appreciate
all the hard work that you and your list writers do
for our hobby. I just want to see for myself what
brought you to your conclusion on this subject to
satisfy my own interest in the armies in the period in
question. :)

Kelly


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> You do realize, Ewan, that the troops in the lists
> are the way they are
> because that is what we and a great many others
> believe these armies actually
> had?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com