Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/7/2004 21:48:26 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
The point is, don't just throw these guys onto the line and hope for the best.
Wait for the line to develop around your skirmishers, and then slot the close
order foot in where they will be reasonably safe. And don't expect big things
from them. Any game in which they (a) don't rout, and (b) don't cause other
units of your to take waver tests is a good game.
In addition to Mark's other fine suggestion, these troops will recover a
routing unit that passes by them. A general nearby can recover the foot from
shaken if they fail the waver the router causes.


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

[Mark Stone]

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

> I know better than to get into these tactical kibitzes, but the issue here is
> that a big HI/MI JLS B unit is asking to be charged by two or three units,
> not just one, thus splitting its shooting down to irrelevance.
> This is the kind of unit I drool over in my opponent's army.
>
> Now, the usual verbal counter to this is - hey these guys are cheap, so if I
> get you to charge my big HI/MI unit with 2-3 of yours I am 'winning'.
>
> This is incorrect. In order to mass those 2-3 units, I am screening
> elsewhere, or better the other guy tried to 'close down the table' with
> terrain and helped me conserve force to gang up on this blob. The large
> suddenly routing unit in the middle of the other guy's army is much more
> valuable than worrying that I took more points to kill it than it was worth.
> I'd put 1000 points on 100 if the death of that 100 opened a hole and caused
> a bunch of wavers....
>

Jon is absolutely right here. Battles are almost always won by more expensive
units routing less expensive units. The key is to be the one who has the right
units in the right place at the right time.

Frankly, anyone is a fool who looks at the 1st Crusade list and thinks that the
required close order foot are in any way an asset just because it will take more
points than they cost to kill them. These troops are a liability, period. The
only reason to take them is because they are required.

Having said that, however, they have their uses. You have to take them, so you
might as well try and get your money's worth out of them. A few suggestions
along those lines:

As I've said before, buy lots of LI and the LC, so you have some kind of a
screen up front. This enables you to put the close order foot into the line at a
point of your choosing, not simply because you have to.

On a hill is ideal, but not always possible. The LTS guys actually work quite
well facing a brush, but in the open. Troops that are good brush troops aren't
generally a threat to them, and troops that are a threat to them -- like
elephants -- aren't going to wade through the brush to get to them. With this in
mind, taking a brush pick and sticking on your opponent's side of the table is
not a bad idea. It creates a forward position where the LTS foot can "man the
line", and creates an channel into the enemy where the pilgrims can operate
effectively.

The close order archer unit probably wants to be on a flank as far away from the
enemy shock troops as possible. Consider having it defend the edge of an
unfortified built over area.

The point is, don't just throw these guys onto the line and hope for the best.
Wait for the line to develop around your skirmishers, and then slot the close
order foot in where they will be reasonably safe. And don't expect big things
from them. Any game in which they (a) don't rout, and (b) don't cause other
units of your to take waver tests is a good game.

> From: doctormm@...
> Subject: Re: Re: Digest Number 1200
>
> Who are these guys, and what historical formation is this supposed to
> simulate?

These troops are actually quite representative, historically. You're talking
about the early Middle Ages here, a time when there is absolutely no concept of
professional foot soldiers. The feudal levy is where the rank and file of foot
troops come from, which basically meant that you and your neighbors showed up
for 40 days a year of campaigning with whatever you had in your possession that
resembled a weapon. The 1st Crusade was even worse in this regard, being
composed of adventurers who were so desperate that they were willing to give
even crusading a try. So they could have any combination of JLS or LTS, with JLS
still being more common. Some portion could have missile weapons, whatever was
readily available: sometimes a bow, sometimes a crossbow. Bow was easier to come
by, but harder to use. Crossbows were more expensive initially, but required
virutally no training to use, which is why they eventually almost completely
supplanted the bow as the European missile weapon.

So these guys historically were a total hodgepodge, and that's the way the list
gives them to you. They were scum, but respectable scum: they won seven major
battles over two years against consistently better trained, better fed, better
equipped, and more numerous opponents.

>
> And is a four rank unit with 4, 4, 2, 2 stands a legal formation for
> Warrior?

My typo. It's actuall 4,4,2 (40 figure unit) which is a perfectly legal
formation for an irregular body.


-Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

Jon writes:

> In addition to Mark's other fine suggestion, these troops will
recover a
> routing unit that passes by them. A general nearby can recover the
foot from
> shaken if they fail the waver the router causes.

If the unit shakes, it is then no longer steady when the routing unit
passes. Is that correct?

If so, then it would not stop the routers. Is that also correct?

IMO if you have to take waiver tests, you are better off taking them
with high morale troops rather than low morale ones.

As I see it, you will take waivers from time to time, regardless. The
question is, would you rather test the C morale foot or the A morale
knights?

I have found that the advise given is exactly opposite to my
experience. Placing a large HI/MI block and daring the enemy to rout
it is a good thing, provided you back the block with a group of high
morale troops able to charge thru the routers into the pursuers, or
able to hit the pursuers in the shieldless flank as they chase down
the remnants of the big foot unit.

OTOH, it has been a long time since I've played and there might be
something that I am missing here.

Larry

Excellent narrative Mark! I would agree with everything you've
said. Indeed, as I said this army uses the close order foot simply
as a platform from which to launch knight attacks. The excitement
for me is in the fact that a rear rank of bow can add to HTH thus
making the unit less brittle than other similar combination units.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
> Frankly, anyone is a fool who looks at the 1st Crusade list and
thinks that the
> required close order foot are in any way an asset just because it
will take more
> points than they cost to kill them. These troops are a liability,
period. The
> only reason to take them is because they are required.
>
> Having said that, however, they have their uses. You have to take
them, so you
> might as well try and get your money's worth out of them. A few
suggestions
> along those lines:
>
> As I've said before, buy lots of LI and the LC, so you have some
kind of a
> screen up front. This enables you to put the close order foot into
the line at a
> point of your choosing, not simply because you have to.
>
> On a hill is ideal, but not always possible. The LTS guys actually
work quite
> well facing a brush, but in the open. Troops that are good brush
troops aren't
> generally a threat to them, and troops that are a threat to them --
like
> elephants -- aren't going to wade through the brush to get to them.
With this in
> mind, taking a brush pick and sticking on your opponent's side of
the table is
> not a bad idea. It creates a forward position where the LTS foot
can "man the
> line", and creates an channel into the enemy where the pilgrims can
operate
> effectively.
>
> The close order archer unit probably wants to be on a flank as far
away from the
> enemy shock troops as possible. Consider having it defend the edge
of an
> unfortified built over area.
>
> The point is, don't just throw these guys onto the line and hope
for the best.
> Wait for the line to develop around your skirmishers, and then slot
the close
> order foot in where they will be reasonably safe. And don't expect
big things
> from them. Any game in which they (a) don't rout, and (b) don't
cause other
> units of your to take waver tests is a good game.
>
> > From: doctormm@o...
> > Subject: Re: Re: Digest Number 1200
> >
> > Who are these guys, and what historical formation is this
supposed to
> > simulate?
>
> These troops are actually quite representative, historically.
You're talking
> about the early Middle Ages here, a time when there is absolutely
no concept of
> professional foot soldiers. The feudal levy is where the rank and
file of foot
> troops come from, which basically meant that you and your neighbors
showed up
> for 40 days a year of campaigning with whatever you had in your
possession that
> resembled a weapon. The 1st Crusade was even worse in this regard,
being
> composed of adventurers who were so desperate that they were
willing to give
> even crusading a try. So they could have any combination of JLS or
LTS, with JLS
> still being more common. Some portion could have missile weapons,
whatever was
> readily available: sometimes a bow, sometimes a crossbow. Bow was
easier to come
> by, but harder to use. Crossbows were more expensive initially, but
required
> virutally no training to use, which is why they eventually almost
completely
> supplanted the bow as the European missile weapon.
>
> So these guys historically were a total hodgepodge, and that's the
way the list
> gives them to you. They were scum, but respectable scum: they won
seven major
> battles over two years against consistently better trained, better
fed, better
> equipped, and more numerous opponents.
>
> >
> > And is a four rank unit with 4, 4, 2, 2 stands a legal formation
for
> > Warrior?
>
> My typo. It's actuall 4,4,2 (40 figure unit) which is a perfectly
legal
> formation for an irregular body.
>
>
> -Mark Stone