Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Pat,

Tell me if I wrong, one reason the Mongols did so well in a campaign sense
with few troops was there reputation, no? I understood that if a town that
did not submit they killed everyone, good motivation to cooperate, and thus
the need for fewer troops.

David


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

[Patrick Byrne]

Two more points on the topic of historical battles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but close to zero historical battles were fought
between armies that brought an equal number of equivalent troop points.
However, because of the *game* we play, both sides have an equal number of
points to field.
If I was commander of an army wanting to conquer another country, I would
want to bring the most troops I can to bear, outnumbering the enemy in both
quantity and quality.

Which brings me to point number 2, Overall strategies and tactics. When
researching the Mongols I was fascinated to see how much they accomplished
with relatively so few troops. Granted their army was huge, but one must
consider it spanned from Hungary to Japan.
I've noted that some tactics the Mongols used do not translate well to
Warrior due to size of the fighting area (table) and the helicopter view us
*new age* generals have. In particular, the Mongol tactic of refusing
(galloping away) a flank back to where some hidden troops would attack in
numbers; which unlike most other armies, this tactic took place over miles
of ground not simulated well on the table.


I am hopeful that Campaign Warrior will account for these issues.
-PB

[Patrick Byrne]

> From: DAVBEE217@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:05:03 EDT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical battles cont.
>
> Pat,
>
> Tell me if I wrong, one reason the Mongols did so well in a campaign sense
> with few troops was there reputation, no? I understood that if a town that
> did not submit they killed everyone, good motivation to cooperate, and thus
> the need for fewer troops.
>
> David
>

That was one way, the other way was to drive them in mass in front of the
army at the next battle. Something about enemies fighting and slaying their
own countrymen sapped the enemies will to fight.

Coincidentally, the H&C lists have an option to take these prisoners as a
Hostage Screen, Irr E LMI IPW. They were also given the status of
Expendable. I am hoping that the new FHM lists have the same inclusion.
However, based on previous posts, I don't think they'll get the Expendable
status; which is weird because the enemy is then eager for killing (breaking
or destroying) what is presumed their own countrymen.


And nothing dies better than shieldless LMI armed with IPW!
-PB

I believe the strategy was to butcher the first few towns/cities, then when
reaching another town/city give the choice of surrender and live, resist and
die. If subsequently the town/city rebelled then it was wiped out. It did not
happen very often so the Mongols could carry on with the conquest without to
much to worry about security of lines of supply. It also meant that they did
not have to leave large garrisons.


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

It does seem a bit ridiculous that seeing a hostage screen that is only
there to slow the enemy and sap their will to fight has a greater effect on
the Mongol force than on the enemy. Something that I feel will need amended.
Yours Sincerely
Ghengis Khan.


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

Pat,

Yeah, I forgot about the hostage screen. Check out the DAW IRR E troop and
their list rules, I think it has potential.

David


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

[scott holder]

Coincidentally, the H&C lists have an option to take these prisoners as
a
Hostage Screen, Irr E LMI IPW. They were also given the status of
Expendable. I am hoping that the new FHM lists have the same inclusion.
However, based on previous posts, I don't think they'll get the
Expendable
status; which is weird because the enemy is then eager for killing
(breaking
or destroying) what is presumed their own countrymen.
And nothing dies better than shieldless LMI armed with IPW!

>Although it's waaaaay to early to tell, yes, Hostage screens won't be
expendables. In all probability, they will be Irr E and who knows,
there might be a list rule that doesn't count them toward army morale or
something. Again, waaaay to early to tell.

Scott
List Ho

[Patrick Byrne]

no command points to be paid would also be nice.
-PB

> From: "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 31 May 2002 07:18:10 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification
> requested)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical battles cont.
>
> Coincidentally, the H&C lists have an option to take these prisoners as
> a
> Hostage Screen, Irr E LMI IPW. They were also given the status of
> Expendable. I am hoping that the new FHM lists have the same inclusion.
> However, based on previous posts, I don't think they'll get the
> Expendable
> status; which is weird because the enemy is then eager for killing
> (breaking
> or destroying) what is presumed their own countrymen.
> And nothing dies better than shieldless LMI armed with IPW!
>
>> Although it's waaaaay to early to tell, yes, Hostage screens won't be
> expendables. In all probability, they will be Irr E and who knows,
> there might be a list rule that doesn't count them toward army morale or
> something. Again, waaaay to early to tell.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[scott holder]

no command points to be paid would also be nice. :)

>In the words of the immortal Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what
you want". heh heh heh

Scott
Classic Rock Ho