Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

One thing I'm seeing in these discussions is the tendency to look at unit to
unit matchups in isolation. Given that Warrior is a game of combined arms
tactics, and that much of Warrior's distinctive realism comes from combined
arms, we're skewing the discussion.

For example:

Let's look at 8 stands of Hoplites vs. 8 stands of bowmen. Not sure what the
bowmen will end up being classified as, but let's take an absolute worst case
for the Hoplites, namely 8 stands of Reg C LMI B,Sh vs. 8 stands of Reg C MI
LTS,Sh. Assume the Hoplites are in a 2 wide, 4 deep formation -- perhaps
there's some hand to hand benefit to this via a list rule. Assume the bowmen
are 4 wide and 2 deep, and the distance is 80p.

The Hoplites count as a 24 figure unit in this formation. The bowmen, if not in
skirmish and no other units involved, get to shoot 32@2 = 64. They do 2 CPF,
even if they roll down 1, causing the Hoplites to halt or test, and if they
roll up 1 they even disorder the Hoplites outright. Sounds like a bad deal for
the Hoplites, and the cause of much hang-wringing over the power of mass
shooting and mischaracterization of Hoplites.

But wait. Look at all the things this example _doesn't_ take into consideration.

First, if I have a 2-wide, 4-deep body I'm probably going to pay the points to
up-armor it so that it's HI in the front. I do this all the time when playing
Swiss allies to my Italian Condotta. Yes, the Hoplites still likely face the
"halt or waver" situation, but they have little chance of getting disordered.

Second, the archers are taking a big risk not being in skirmish. If I opt to
take the waver test and pass, then I'm charging the archers and they are toast.
And I may well have upped the morale on this unit for all my opponent knows. It
could be Reg B or B and partially A, making it _very_ likely to pass a waver
test. If I have a chance to absolutely squelch one of my opponents units I'll
gladly take that waver test.

Third, we're assuming no other units on the Hoplite side intervene to split fire
in any way. Frankly, I don't care what a guy is running; if he lets himself get
double overlapped for shooting, then he deserves his fate.

And that's really where the combined arms come in. Good commanders -- and I
believe the classical Greeks had a few of these -- won't let units flounder in
isolation like this, but will instead put together effective combined arms
forces. A more likely set up would be adjoining LI units next to the Hoplite
block to split enemy fire, and then a couple of supporting cav units behind the
LI so that the archers have the unenviable choice of either being in skirmish
and run down by the cav, or not being in skirmish and being run down by the
Hoplites. The net result of this is that the archers never go to this part of
the battlefield to begin with, as their commander isn't that stupid.

If the archers are of lesser density, either light troops, mounted troops, or
irreg loose order, then the situation for the Hoplites gets a lot better.

In short, I just don't see how vulnerability to shooting is a major problem at
present. Given some morale upgrade options and some up-armoring options, and
some competent combined arms play, I can't see how any of the battles mentioned
would fail to work out a-historically with respect to shooting.

I do think when you just look at a Hoplite shield and think about how it
functions, some additional benefit against missile fire is warranted, but the
idea that this counts as "in cover" really does seem a bit much.

By the way, much the same reasoning applies to the Hoplite-peltast matchup. We
don't need rules that cause peltasts to be routed at contact by Hoplites to get
historical behavior. The mere fact that peltasts start out at a significant
disadvantage makes it a bad bet for the peltasts, and hence a matchup that
reasonable commanders would not have sought out. I can't see that the current
rules are failing us here.

Where I do think we have a problem is with Hoplites vs. other LTS-armed close
order foot. Right now, there is no difference. Some difference seems to be
warranted. If I had to vote for list rules, based on the discussion so far I'd
still vote for:
- Hoplites always fight in 2 ranks;
- Opponents suffer an additional -1 in hand-to-hand or shooting vs. steady,
shielded Hoplites.

I also find appealing the idea that some Hoplites, perhaps only A or B class, or
perhaps only those of certain city states, or a limited number of certain city
states, get an one extra figure fighting per rank for ranks 3-6 when charging,
counter-charging, pursuing, or following up.

There's been a fair amount of discussion about increasing the speed of Hoplites
in a charge. I don't know the history well enough to judge, though any history
that says foot soldiers covered 900 yards too rapidly for archers to respond to
I would simply dismiss as not credible. No equipment-encumbered foot soldier in
all of history has ever covered that distance in less than 3 minutes. I don't
think a 120 charge move will change things much anyway. A 120 charge _and_
tactical move changes a lot, as that gives units the ability to march to a
position in one bound and then approach to charge range in the next.

Again, this isn't my period historically. I'm just trying to point out some
things in terms of game mechanics and "Warrior style" that should be part of
the discussion in which the history is grounded.


-Mark Stone

[Mike Bard]

> One thing I'm seeing in these discussions is the tendency to look at unit
to
> unit matchups in isolation. Given that Warrior is a game of combined arms
> tactics, and that much of Warrior's distinctive realism comes from
combined
> arms, we're skewing the discussion.

[snip]

> But wait. Look at all the things this example _doesn't_ take into
consideration.
>
> First, if I have a 2-wide, 4-deep body I'm probably going to pay the
points to
> up-armor it so that it's HI in the front. I do this all the time when
playing
> Swiss allies to my Italian Condotta. Yes, the Hoplites still likely face
the
> "halt or waver" situation, but they have little chance of getting
disordered.
>
> Second, the archers are taking a big risk not being in skirmish. If I opt
to
> take the waver test and pass, then I'm charging the archers and they are
toast.
> And I may well have upped the morale on this unit for all my opponent
knows. It
> could be Reg B or B and partially A, making it _very_ likely to pass a
waver
> test. If I have a chance to absolutely squelch one of my opponents units
I'll
> gladly take that waver test.
>
> Third, we're assuming no other units on the Hoplite side intervene to
split fire
> in any way. Frankly, I don't care what a guy is running; if he lets
himself get
> double overlapped for shooting, then he deserves his fate.

True with all the split fire and unit concentration. But, it can go both
ways. A hoplite player can split one bow units fire across two units. A
missile player can angle columns of skirming missile troops so that they all
shoot at one body.

What I think the aim here is to get a historically accurate base result.
Or, what was expected to happen by historical contemporaries if all things
were equal. Once that baseline is established, then any variations by
random factor die roll are simply "acts of the gods", and any variations by
tactics are just superior tactics. Neither should be counted when working
out the baseline result.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[Bill Chriss]

> One thing I'm seeing in these discussions is the tendency to look at
> unit to
> unit matchups in isolation. Given that Warrior is a game of combined arms
> tactics, and that much of Warrior's distinctive realism comes from
> combined
> arms, we're skewing the discussion.
>
>
>
> Where I do think we have a problem is with Hoplites vs. other LTS-armed
> close
> order foot. Right now, there is no difference. Some difference seems to
> be
> warranted. If I had to vote for list rules, based on the discussion so
> far I'd
> still vote for:
> - Hoplites always fight in 2 ranks;
> - Opponents suffer an additional -1 in hand-to-hand or shooting vs.
> steady,
> shielded Hoplites.
>
> I also find appealing the idea that some Hoplites, perhaps only A or B
> class, or
> perhaps only those of certain city states, or a limited number of certain
> city
> states, get an one extra figure fighting per rank for ranks 3-6 when
> charging,
> counter-charging, pursuing, or following up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>


Well, as usual, I find little to disagree with in Marks' analysis. At
bottom, it seems to agree with my major points while scaling back a couple
of the list rules I suggested. The -1 in HTH and shooting vs. steady,
shielded hoplites might well be a good solution to many issues folks have
raised here, along with the other suggestions Mark accepts, such as the
one figure fighting in rear ranks, always fighting 2 ranks deep, etc.

Just to stand up for one of my views, though, I still maintain in contrast
to Mark that peltasts, as we currently play them, are too strong against
hoplites. But I have beaten that dead horse quite enough.

On to the Achaean league!


Greek

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > One thing I'm seeing in these discussions is the tendency to
look at
> > unit to
> > unit matchups in isolation. Given that Warrior is a game of
combined arms
> > tactics, and that much of Warrior's distinctive realism comes from
> > combined
> > arms, we're skewing the discussion.

Leadership and tactics surely mean as much if not more than force
matcups, man for man US soldiers are better equiped than the Iraq
soldiers but could easily loose this current war.
Let me pose this question if Alexander and Darius changed armies at
the Granicus, Gaugamela or Issus, would the Macedonians still win? I
think not Alexander was by far the better leader.

Happy Xmas TTFN.
Kingo