Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

You must have missed reading about the 211 AD reforms from Listicus Sansarmorcus
:}

WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com wrote: There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Looking for an historical source
From: "artorius1040"
2. Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
From: "Jonathan"
3. Re: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
From: hrisikos@...
4. Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
From: "Jonathan"
5. Re: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
From: hrisikos@...


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:07:56 -0000
From: "artorius1040"
Subject: Looking for an historical source

I can't recall where it is in the classical literature, but I'm looking for the
account of the
Great Middle-Roman Armor Divestiture of AD 211. I'm sure it's somewhere, but
I've lost
the source.

The reason I know it's there is because the Imperial Warrior list #23 (Middle
Imperial
Roman 193-324 AD) is very clear that before the emperor Septimius Severus died
at
Eboracum in 211, every Roman legionairy wore armor. As the news spread of the
emperor's death, legionairies throughout the empire--at every post in every
theatre of
operations--stripped off their lorica and chucked it in the rubbish.

All sarcasm aside, why do the people that make army lists feel the need to strip
Romans of
their armor at every whim? I'm sure that if there were some obscure literary
anecdote of
Roman legionaries being caught naked and unarmed while bathing, some list-maker
would claim that it means that after a certain date, all Roman legionaries must
be naked
and armed only with their willies (Reg C, MI, W @ 12 pts).

And why such a dogmatic rigidity? The list creates an artificial divide between
"Severan"
and "Post-Severan" troops types with the rule that the two types cannot co-exist
in an
army. Why? Even if the list author is convinced that by a certain date NO Roman
legionary
wore armor, doesn't it make sense that it was a gradual change? Or does the
author
believe that on a specific date the legions elected to keep their swords and
beat their
armor into ploughshares instead?

Sorry for the rant, but I find it goofy that the lists are this way.





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:41:18 -0000
From: "Jonathan"
Subject: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?

Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up on it in
Hans
Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
spearpoint shape
than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It didn't
put more
guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace fallen
front
rankers because there were som many ranks behind.

Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON, but
based
on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without lance,
fight in
1.5 ranks.

So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
formational
doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
frontage (and if
so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better" in a
generic but
game balancing way?

Thanks, though, again for the response.

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jamie white" wrote:
>
> I'll take a stab at part of it but I'm sure there are more reasons. In the
> old rules (WRG) some troops were allowed a wedge formation that fought more
> figures across an element's width than the standard block formation. Rather
> than continue the old debate about who's lance calvary was superior or if
> some ancient writer's reference to"... they charged like lions..." meant
> wedge formation and thus deserved the option to use the special wedge
> formation, the new and better rule (at least I like it better) is that all
> lance calvary fights rank and a half.
>
> John and Scot I'm sure can give you more detailed reasons about why but at
> least here's part of the story that has gone on before.
>
> Jamie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:51 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?
>
>
> > List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of
> > specific nationalities to
> > fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or
> > formational innovation like
> > some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more
> > fighting power on
> > each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops
> > "better" in a generic
> > but balancing way.
> >
> > This is not a question about basic rules for weapons - warrior states
> > clearly that fighting
> > ranks are meant to encourage the use of historical depth, itself important
> > in front rank
> > fighting power because of its psychological effect and the ability of deep
> > ranks to replace
> > fallen front rankers. This is *specifically* a question about the list
> > rules allowing 1.5 rank
> > fighting. Different because with the list rules it is based on
> > nationality and not on weapon
> > type or time of use (1st contact etc.).
> >
> > Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules.
> > My problem is that
> > when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in
> > 1.5 ranks and
> > mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause
> > they're like ah . . . better."
> >
> > Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who
> > knows the answer or
> > has any insight into it.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:22:05 -0600 (CST)
From: hrisikos@...
Subject: Re: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?

> Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up
> on it in Hans
> Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
> spearpoint shape
> than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It
> didn't put more
> guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace
> fallen front
> rankers because there were som many ranks behind.
>
> Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON,
> but based
> on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without
> lance, fight in
> 1.5 ranks.
>
> So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
> formational
> doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
> frontage (and if
> so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better"
> in a generic but
> game balancing way?


Since this is not a rules question, I'll give my take on part of it,
although my reason for being satisfied with the rule may be entirely
different than FHE's justification for it.

The answer to your question is basically yes. With respect to some JLS
armed cav, there were formations uniquely used that improved their combat
effectiveness, i.e., Thessalian HC wedge or LC rhomboid. Others were
pretty universally acknowledged as tactically superior in a way not
reflected in the weapon hit charts, i.e., late classical Tarantines, or
Mongols.

While I might have a historical quibble here or there, I think this
generally makes the game better and more nuanced than it would be
otherwise. AND REMEMBER, the games design philosophy of FHE (as I, an
outsider, appreciate it from reading here) is to correctly reflect/balance
HISTORICAL opponents IN PERIOD. Viewed in that light, these list rules (or
something much like them) is almost indispensible to doing the job right,
although each of us may find a list rule or two we think goes too far or
not far enough.

While in a tournament format I agree that Mongols appear quite optimal in
their bang for the buck-so much so that I even resent some of their
advantages--as I understand it, the only thing that stopped the Mongols IN
PERIOD for about a hundred years, with a couple of minor exceptions, was
that the khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia to crown a new
one. However, this era is certainly not my specialty!


-Greek



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:22:41 -0000
From: "Jonathan"
Subject: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?

So what specifically was happening in a mongol light cavalry or classical
tarantine charge?
What was more effective at putting fighting power on the frontline of these two
armies'
light cav?

Also, I never did understand how a rhomboid would increase fighting power -
maneuverability maybe?

I ask because:

1) I am curious

2) new players as me and I want to be able to give an intelligent answer.

thanks for all the info!

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the response. I remember the WRG rule about wedge. I read up
> > on it in Hans
> > Delbruck's books and his analysis of it was that it was less of a sort of
> > spearpoint shape
> > than just a very narrow, very deep formation (at least for Germans). It
> > didn't put more
> > guys on the front, it just had a lot more momentum and ability to replace
> > fallen front
> > rankers because there were som many ranks behind.
> >
> > Anyway, my question was not about how many ranks fight based on WEAPON,
> > but based
> > on NATIONALITY. Armies likethe mongols get to have LC that, even without
> > lance, fight in
> > 1.5 ranks.
> >
> > So the question is: Is this because those armies had some kind of advanced
> > formational
> > doctrine or fighting style that allowed them more fighting power per unit
> > frontage (and if
> > so what was it) OR is the list rule just meant to make Mongol LC "better"
> > in a generic but
> > game balancing way?
>
>
> Since this is not a rules question, I'll give my take on part of it,
> although my reason for being satisfied with the rule may be entirely
> different than FHE's justification for it.
>
> The answer to your question is basically yes. With respect to some JLS
> armed cav, there were formations uniquely used that improved their combat
> effectiveness, i.e., Thessalian HC wedge or LC rhomboid. Others were
> pretty universally acknowledged as tactically superior in a way not
> reflected in the weapon hit charts, i.e., late classical Tarantines, or
> Mongols.
>
> While I might have a historical quibble here or there, I think this
> generally makes the game better and more nuanced than it would be
> otherwise. AND REMEMBER, the games design philosophy of FHE (as I, an
> outsider, appreciate it from reading here) is to correctly reflect/balance
> HISTORICAL opponents IN PERIOD. Viewed in that light, these list rules (or
> something much like them) is almost indispensible to doing the job right,
> although each of us may find a list rule or two we think goes too far or
> not far enough.
>
> While in a tournament format I agree that Mongols appear quite optimal in
> their bang for the buck-so much so that I even resent some of their
> advantages--as I understand it, the only thing that stopped the Mongols IN
> PERIOD for about a hundred years, with a couple of minor exceptions, was
> that the khan died and they all had to go back to Mongolia to crown a new
> one. However, this era is certainly not my specialty!
>
>
> -Greek
>







________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:57:11 -0600 (CST)
From: hrisikos@...
Subject: Re: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it represent?

> So what specifically was happening in a mongol light cavalry or classical
> tarantine charge?
> What was more effective at putting fighting power on the frontline of
> these two armies'
> light cav?
>
> Also, I never did understand how a rhomboid would increase fighting power
> -
> maneuverability maybe?
>
> I ask because:
>
> 1) I am curious
>
> 2) new players as me and I want to be able to give an intelligent answer.
>
> thanks for all the info!
>
> Jonathan


Again, I'm not an official voice, just one who likes the game as is, so I
don't wish to become embroiled in something Scott or Bill are much better
able to weigh in on, or perhaps might prefer not to dissect quite so much.
From my perspective as a historian and gamer, I can only add that from my
own personal perspective:


1. Rhomboid (and wedge) were largely a matter of both maneuverability AND
the ability to stay in formation when changing direction and at and
immediately before contact. Fighting power is significantly impacted both
by maneuverability and by staying in formation, especially with respect to
light cavalry. By analogy, ask any fighter pilot or cowboy.

2. The fact that some cavalry just plain fought better (many times due to
better and longer training, as in the case of Tarantines and Thessalians,
or due to just being incredibly good horsemen like the Mongols) is not
replicated on the tabletop either by better grades of morale or by each
JLS armed cav unit, regardless of nationality, morale, etc., dishing out
the same number of casualties, subject only to random factor dicing.

I never regarded this general concept as indigestible, for a newbie or
otherwise. For example, 20 years ago, no one needed to explain to me why
Roman HTW dishes out a 5 to my HI, as compared to my pike's 2 to the
legionary HI, whereas my pike fights many more ranks than the legionary.
In fact, I never thought to ask. That's just what is required, along with
all the other game mechanics, to produce a reasonably realistic
simulation.

Now certainly other rules systems accomplish similar results by different
methods, whether one is speaking about napoleonics, pike and shot, or
whatever, but that doesn't undercut the utility of the list rules
occasionally used in the FHE system to accomplish the same result.

-Greek






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------







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