Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Jon,

After reading the EHC skirmish X-rule and playing it and discussing it with
some friends, we thought it might be an improvement to say:

X6.45 EHC SKIRMISH. Add to the list of troops allowed to adopt skirmish
formation if otherwise eligible: EHC if in a body mixed with HC or MC.

It seems that there should still be a difference between a body composed
completely of EHC and a body with front rank(s) in heavier armor. In this
way, only the latter is of a type able to skirmish. Of course the penalty
would be that they would count the lesser armor type while in skirmishing
formation. On the plus side, mixed EHC would now be able to skirmish.

-- Charles


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/6/2003 17:39:02 Central Standard Time, clr198@...
writes:

> It seems that there should still be a difference between a body composed
> completely of EHC and a body with front rank(s) in heavier armor.

Why? Is there history behind that or are you saying 'seems' from a gaming
standpoint?


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 01/06/2003 9:45:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

> >It seems that there should still be a difference between a body composed
> >completely of EHC and a body with front rank(s) in heavier armor.
>
> Why? Is there history behind that or are you saying 'seems' from a gaming
> standpoint?
>
>
>

The question that arises in my mind is fatigue. It is already a mistake in
my opinion to not fatigue the horses running at full tilt to avoid a charge,
while fatiguing those who are running at full tilt to catch the evaders. Now
EHC which moves just as fast as HC is going to be able to avoid a charge ad
infinitum at no fatigue? Gamesmanship seems to be slipping into our game, er
simulation.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

The question that arises in my mind is fatigue. It is already a mistake in
my opinion to not fatigue the horses running at full tilt to avoid a charge,
while fatiguing those who are running at full tilt to catch the evaders.>>

That *would* be a mistake. Good thing in Warrior that 'fatigue' is short hand
for loss of combat effectiveness from casualties, ERODING COHESION and use of
ammunition as well as physical tiredness. Otherwise we'd have it all wrong.
Please take a moment and read 1.261.....

<<Now
EHC which moves just as fast as HC is going to be able to avoid a charge ad
infinitum at no fatigue?>>

X-RULE! Deep breath.

How about playing a couple games with it and letting us know what you think from
a fact-based standpoint? That is, after all, the intent of x-rules....

Of course, since the mounted charge-evade 'fatigue' relationship is about who
keeps their cohesion and effectiveness better, it would be best not to continue
to make the error that all FP are is a measure of who got bodily tired from the
exertion of charging. In fact, physical tiredness of the soldier and mount's
actual bodies is the least important aspect of the first two-three points of
mounted charge fatigue.

When we began this process, I stumped for a change of 'fatigue points' into
'cohesion points' or 'effectiveness points' as that is what they *really* are,
but as with prompt and waver, we opted to keep language familiar to our customer
base.

Jon
Combat effectiveness guru

>> > It seems that there should still be a difference between a body composed
>> > completely of EHC and a body with front rank(s) in heavier armor.
>
> Why? Is there history behind that or are you saying 'seems' from a gaming
> standpoint?
>

From a physics standpoint, at what point does the added weight of additional
armor (progressing from MC to HC to EHC to SHC) adversely affect a unit¹s
ability to successfully evade from a less encumbered opponent? A unit with
EHC in the front rank only would represent a unit only slightly more heavily
armored than it otherwise would be and, in this case, one might imagine the
less armored cavalry moving forward to conduct the actual skirmish
operation.

From a historical standpoint, I think this issue is firmly in the realm of
the vague and fuzzy. For example, one group I am quite familiar with who
would benefit from this rules change is the Avars. The new list requires at
least 1/2 of the Avar loose cavalry to be EHC. Without going into details,
one could make the argument that Avars might be represented by any
combination of LC, MC, HC, or EHC. There is just not enough knowledge to say
such and such is the standard armor for an Avar warrior. The quantity of
armor (for man and horse) would be a function of the wealth of that
particular individual, family, tribe, and overall state of the Avar Œempire¹
at the time. Clearly the Avars skirmished. They were also known to form
lines with varying troop density (to hide their numbers among other
reasons). If 1/2 of the cavalry must be EHC and since the Avars skirmished,
either the HC must form separate units or EHC (at least mixed with HC)
should be allowed to skirmish. In my opinion, there are too many other
assumptions that go into how Warrior initially classifies troop types to be
able to say definitively from a historical perspective whether something we
call EHC should or should not skirmish.

So, I guess the main reason we tried playing this way has to do with play
balance. I concede that in the end the rules authors have the final say on
what is considered balanced. As I said before, this will definitely help my
Avars; I will just need to buy new EHC versions of the figures now.




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