Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 17:26:14 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
Just as an example: disrupters, if used carefully,
can fulfill their mission by _losing_ in hand to hand combat, thus causing an
opponent to follow up in a situation where he has the unpleasant choice of (a)
getting charged in the flank by a closer next bound, or (b) expanding out an
overlapping element that will get charged frontally by a closer next bound.>.

Good point. I am having a lot of fun doing that right now with 10E units of
LI getting off impetuous charges on an LC who must either evade and expose
someone or fight and get stuck to my LI who are too big for them to kill in one
combat. If they stay at 121+p and charge me - I'll stand for the same
result... :)


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

[Mark Stone]

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

> From: "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@...>
> Subject: E Nik Byz - learning lessons on list building
>
> 17 units (4 commands, 160 figures: 48 mounted + 112 foot)
> @ 1,388 total
>
> 1x CinC & Kavallarioi Lancers
> 2E 1/2 Reg A HC L, B, Sh 1/2 Reg D MC L, Sh (w/ PA std)
> @ 179 = 179
>
> 3x Sub-general & Kavallarioi Lancers
> 2E 1/2 Reg A HC L, B, Sh 1/2 Reg D MC L, Sh (w/ P std)
> @ 109 = 327
>
> 1x Kavallarioi Kataphraktoi
> 2E Reg B SHC L, Sh
> @ 146 = 146
>
> 4x Kavallarioi Archers
> 2E Reg D LC B
> @ 30 = 120
>
> 2x Psiloi
> 4E Reg D LI B
> @ 26 = 52
>
> 3x Kontaratoi
> 6E 1/3 Reg C MI 2/3 Reg D MI 2/3 LTS, JLS, D, Sh 1/3 B, Sh
> @ 122 = 366
>
> 3x Kontaratoi Menaulatoi
> 2E Reg B MI HTW, JLS, D, Sh
> @ 66 = 198
>


A couple of comments:
(1) Two 4-stand units of LI is not enough. Against a skilled opponent you're
going to lose the skirmisher engagement in the first couple of bounds, and then
his skirmishers will pin you where he doesn't want to fight and he'll pound on
you where he does want to fight. Partly that's because...
(2) You're counting on close order foot to win the battle for you. I'll grant
you this is some pretty impressive close order foot, but I fundamentally don't
believe that armies whose best shock troops (and let's face it, the cav here is
OK, but not great) are close order foot achieve a large number of 5 point
victories.

Perhaps this is just a matter of personal playing style, but I believe that
close order foot have a number of fatal flaws as shock troops:
- They march too slowly, often taking at least a bound longer than cav or
regular loose to get to where they need to fight
- They approach too slowly; loose order can, from 240p, cover that distance with
an approach and charge in the same bound while close order foot require an extra
bound to cover the distance
- There are too many terrain situations where close order are handicapped.
Don't get me wrong: used situationally, close order can make great space
fillers, line troops, or counter-punchers. But as your main shock troops? No.
Not even with darts. Darts don't change the fact that they have to get to 80p
from something important to do damage. That's just too easy to avoid.

On that note, here's a fundamentally different approach to running Nik Byz:

17 units, 4 commands, 176 figures, 60 scouting points
CinC w/2 stands Reg A/C EHC/HC L,B,Sh
Sub w/2 stands of Reg A/C EHC/HC L,B,Sh
2x sub w/2 stands of Reg A/B EHC/HC L,B,Sh
1x 2 stands Reg A/B SHC L,Sh
3x 4 stands Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh
2x 6 stands Reg C LMI B,Sh/B
2x 6 stands Reg D LI B,Sh/B
2x 2 stands Reg C LI B,Sh/B
1x 6 stands Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/B
1x 6 stands Reg C LC B
1x 2 stands Reg B LC B,Sh/B


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

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

> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:53:30 -0500
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Subject: Re: Army Rating System
>
> I think there should be one more category. My name for these troops is
> 'closer' (said like the type of pitcher....)
>
> A Reg EHC with a general is a good example. Too many things out there kill
> you if you get in first/try to be a shock troop, but you are just the guy to
> finish someone off who is alread involved or screened.
>

Jon makes an excellent point here. I almost thinks it is better to think of two
independent classifications, one based on position in deployment and one based
on function:

Positional -
Skirmishers: Light troops who are the front line and/or force marchers
Line Open: line troops who operate in clear terrain, such as pikemen or Russ
Line Rough: line troops who operate in bad terrain, such as peltasts or auxilia
Line Missile: line troops who wear down the enemy with shooting and avoid
contact by skirmishing
Shock Reserve: troops initially deployed behind the line awaiting targets of
opportunity

Functional -
Distracters: troops who intervene between you high value troops and enemy they
do not want to contact. These will be skirmisher or line troops.
Disrupters: troops who will cause some kind of disruption and/or disorder in the
enemy line, which can then be exploited. Often these will be line troops of some
kind, but often these troops will be shock troops. Viking beserks or scythed
chariots are a good example. Nobody expects them to rout many opponents (though
it's always nice when they do). Rather their point is to disrupt the enemy line,
hopefully by disordering a key enemy unit.
Closers: troops who exploit the disruption. Almost always part of the shock
reserve.

Beginners almost always have the most trouble playing distracters. They tend to
make one of two general mistakes: (a) not putting enough value in this function
and therefore not buying enough light troops, or (b) buying enough light troops
but not managing the spacing of them properly, with the result that their LI end
up awkardly interpenetrated through other troops when evading, and their LC are
often not left with enough room to evade.

Middling players almost always have the most trouble understanding the
disrupter-closer distinction. Just as an example: disrupters, if used carefully,
can fulfill their mission by _losing_ in hand to hand combat, thus causing an
opponent to follow up in a situation where he has the unpleasant choice of (a)
getting charged in the flank by a closer next bound, or (b) expanding out an
overlapping element that will get charged frontally by a closer next bound.
Setting this up so that it happens at the right place and the right time on the
battlefield is not easy to do though, and doing it wrong is a quick path to
defeat. I suspect, by the way, that this function is the source of disagreement
between Jon and Boyd over 1st Crusade. Boyd is confident he can use the close
order foot in a "disrupting lure" role, and Jon is trying to warn players,
especially inexperienced players, that Boyd's personal confidence does not mean
that these troops are well suited to the role generally.

And yes, after 16 years in 7th and Warrior, I still make an abundance of
"beginner" and "middling" mistakes in my games. As I heard Eric Clapton say in
an interview, "When I finally get it right I'll stop playing."


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Thanks, Mark.

Some very insightful comments from a very good player.

Unfortunately...

I think you totally and completely missed the point of my post and
the question therein.

I am not claiming that a 1388 point list can compete in a 1600 point
tournament (though while I certainly can not I do know of some
players that can do this - Scott M won a tourney playing 1400 while
everyone else had 1600 which I still find incredible). Nor am I
claiming that these lists - either of them - are all that great.

The point, although I did ask if they both were just way too far off
base and maybe that is what you are saying, is the comparison between
the two to see if it (namely the reduction in moral grades and armor,
hence cost, with hopefully the same capabilities - regardless of the
fact that they might still actually need to do something with those
points saved) is getting better or worse.

I will, being the "small-brained bear" variety of player, avoid a
lengthy reply to your reply.

Thanks for the pointers. I'll try to digest them.

My only commentary, being that I'm currently building a 25mm Nike
list is that once again on small boards at small points close order
foot will get into battle.

As Mark points out, it is hard to rely upon them effectively in this
role, but when playing 1200 points on a 4x6 table in 25mm you had
best mimimize the LI and LC and bulk up on shock/line/missile troops
because everyone is ready to shoot/charge in bound 2. Extra LI are
just targets that will give converted charges and LC have little
manuver room. Where on an 8x5 with 1600 points I'd run 6E of LC in
three ranks, with 1100 on a 4x6 I'd run 2 or 4E in 2 ranks.


On the other note about the point of contention between Jon and
myself on the _required_ crusader foot, for the money I still say
they are very effectively run in this configuration. The
alternatives, and I've tried them all, are all worse. Again, in the
world of small games as 2 6E or 1 12E these guys will get into battle
and must be run well to survive. But this is true for any unit that
can be fielded. There is always a counter.


I lost the large unit is a friendly game against Ambrose last week
just for example. But while he was occupying some 3 units to do so,
I was gnawing on his other flank. I think he eventually won 5-3 or 5-
4, as the game was a bloodbath just like all 1100 point games. Of
course, drink was involved for tactical enhancement :)

Oh, and that was running a marginal army with marginal dice against
the recent darling of the NICT cycle HYW English. And, I might also
add, Ambrose is an excellent player.

Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

> From: "Frank Gilson" <franktrevorgilson@...>
> Subject: Tlaxcallans again
>
> Thanks for the couple of responses...I have responses to the responses.
>
> hrisikos8 states:
> "First, let me say that I have no comment on the native portion of
> the list, only the Spanish. Second, heretical as it seems, I have
> actually helped my son build this army, one of his favorites. Third,
> my only suggestion is probably wrong. We like the 4E Spanish foot
> with HG in front rank, CB back rank. You sacrifice range for
> firepower, and since they're loose, you can move into range fairly
> quickly. I'd like to hear why you opted against this, since I'm long
> on history and very short on playing the game well."
>
> Well, I hate handguns... They have great factors, but don't "reach out" to
> 240p. Thus, you lose some extension of force you would otherwise have. Also,
> I tend to put high morale regular loose order foot with a hth weapon in 8
> man units, poor morale into 24 man units. 16 man units are a 'bridge'
> between these two concepts that just doesn't seem to work out well.

Fair enough; I would like the ability to come up and shoot 6@4 on
anything and still be able to charge in. Different strokes.

> Well, I just won't face LIR in a tournament ...Something like Sean Patrick
> Scott's reasoning on running a knight heavy list. I've designed my list to
> compete reasonably with many foot and all mounted opponents.

Incidentally, I think this - as I tried to mention - is the
'right' way to build lists if one is trying to win. The question
is a philosophical one: would you (at the extreme) rather have a
100% lock on coming 2nd, say, or a 5% chance of winning and a 95%
chance of coming last? I'd pick the latter - second is just
another loser to me - but people differ.

> From: "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@...>
> Subject: E Nik Byz - learning lessons on list building

> First is how I have built this army previously
> Admittedly, looking at this list it still appeals to me
> Old habits die hard after all

> 1x CinC 2E 1/2 Reg A 1/2 Reg B HC L, B, Sh (w/ PA std)
> 3x Sub-general & Kavallarioi Lancers
> 1x 2E 1/2 Reg A 1/2 Reg B SHC L, Sh
> 4x 2E Reg C LC B
> 2x 4E Reg D LI B
> 3x 6E Reg C 1/3 HI 1/3 MI LTS, JLS, D, Sh 1/3 MI B, Sh
> 3x 2E Reg B 1/2 HI 1/2 MI HTW, JLS, D, Sh

> Next is how I might build this army now
> 1x CinC 2E 1/2 Reg A HC L, B, Sh 1/2 Reg D MC L, Sh (w/ PA std)
> 3x Sub-general 2E 1/2 Reg A HC L, B, Sh 1/2 Reg D MC L, Sh (w/ P std)
> 1x 2E Reg B SHC L, Sh
> 4x 2E Reg D LC B
> 2x 4E Reg D LI B
> 3x 6E 1/3 Reg C MI 2/3 Reg D MI 2/3 LTS, JLS, D, Sh 1/3 B, Sh
> 3x 2E Reg B MI HTW, JLS, D, Sh

I think this is much worse, actually. The mixed morale for the
lancers means that they will counter poorly, and the loss of
ability to skirmish I see as a big negative especially if facing
something like knights or elephants.

If I were trying to trim points from the first list, I would
delete the SHC (a troop type I consider vastly overpriced for the
capability - you will not their complete absence from the NICT
lists...) and consider deleting the infantry armour as you have
done. Then, yes, get some rough terrain troops - the
double-armed varangians are great if available.

I also think that you have too few LI for a Byzantine (with the
great LI screen available) - especially as your 'impact' troops
are close fooot, so you need to be able to get them into the
place of your choosing. But that's all rather beyond the
question that you asked .