Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

It seems, based upon various list guru analyses, that building any
army around sufficient numbers of SHK (front-rank) units to make
an "attacking" versus "counter-punching" army just leaves too little
points for other necessary support types. So even an army with 8-10
SHK/HK units and numerous LC supports is still a "one-trick pony".

But what I am looking for is more something like the following, but
with more personal historical interest.

Any suggestions in this regard?

In that vein here is something from Ewan's critique of the 2003 NICT
lists, quoted in full (sorry):

Italian Condotta Book III, #169 (go figure)
Venetian in Greece Version (VG)

CinC+5 SHK L Reg A + PAS 225
2inC+5 SHK L Reg B + PS 150
Sub+5 SHK L Reg B + PS 150
6 SHK L Reg B 118
6 SHK L Reg B 118
6 SHK L Reg C 112
6 SHK L Reg C 112
6 SHK L Reg C 112
6 SHK L Reg C 112
8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
4 LC, XB Reg C 34
4 LC, XB Reg C 34
4 LC, XB Reg C 34
6 LI, XB Reg C*** 22
6 LI, XB Reg C*** 22

[Ewan] I don't know what the *** means but the units seem oddly
priced – shouldn't they be 28? That's a sideline though: this has to
be Sean Scott's list, the world's best – and only – Condotta player.
I actually like this variant of it – the LHI 2HCT, HG guys are gone
in favour of a single-minded devotion to SHK and LC; the LI are even
useful as a brief roadblock in front of the K.

I suspect that 2 subs is all that he is allowed, as more would be
better and they're really cheap when you're SHK. But even so, 9 SHK
units is more than most folk ever run, and the LC is actually in
sufficient quantity to play a good support role. The games are
unlikely to last very long, I expect – although dismounting from the
K will provide almost missile-proof but slow-moving infantry which
might slow things down (and while I don't know, I would bet that this
happened in his game against Derek's Silla). Otherwise, the mass of
SHK will find a target or three in most enemies. It would be nice if
they had shields, but even without they are still very formidable,
very mobile, and very concentrated. This must be the smallest army
in the tournament! The best thing I have to compare it to is the
Imperialists (old list #167) which I have run a lot: they get more
SHK-fronted units and much better support troops, but the rear ranks
of knight units are often HC/HK. This is almost a sharpened version:
more focussed, harder-hitting if anything, but more brittle. I would
have enjoyed facing it with Seleucids J. Still, rated as 7-8/10.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> It seems, based upon various list guru analyses, that building any
> army around sufficient numbers of SHK (front-rank) units to make
> an "attacking" versus "counter-punching" army just leaves too
little
> points for other necessary support types. So even an army with 8-10
> SHK/HK units and numerous LC supports is still a "one-trick pony".

J, I run one-trick armies all the time. First Crusade is such an
army. It was not ment as an insult, just a statement of opinion.
The difficulty in being an attacking player rather than a counter-
puncher is in the dice. As Dirty Harry said "Do you feel lucky?" If
so, then charge ahead and let the devil take the hindmost. I
certainly have used this tactic many times with about a 50% margin of
victory. You could run the list as developed, just save the 75
points by making the Prussian foot one unit. then use the points to
buy some Prussian bowmen. Since the army has no screen of LI, you
will have to use your SHK to kill LI. Of course it will be fun, but
at what price victory?

>
> >
> Italian Condotta Book III, #169 (go figure)
> Venetian in Greece Version (VG)
>
> CinC+5 SHK L Reg A + PAS 225
> 2inC+5 SHK L Reg B + PS 150
> Sub+5 SHK L Reg B + PS 150
> 6 SHK L Reg B 118
> 6 SHK L Reg B 118
> 6 SHK L Reg C 112
> 6 SHK L Reg C 112
> 6 SHK L Reg C 112
> 6 SHK L Reg C 112
> 8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
> 8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
> 8 LC, JLS Sh Ir B 81
> 4 LC, XB Reg C 34
> 4 LC, XB Reg C 34
> 4 LC, XB Reg C 34
> 6 LI, XB Reg C*** 22
> 6 LI, XB Reg C*** 22
>
>
In the list above, the difference from your Teut list jumps
immediately to mind. The LC here are poorly armed, yet with high
morale they can more likely take some abuse over time and occupy
enemy. In your list, the IrgD LC will get shot back disordered, then
either charged or shot again while rallying, thus stripping your
flank security exposing your SHK flank. Here the player runs the Reg
LC unit forward to take most of the shooting, then charged impetously
with the Irrg LC to sweep enemy LI and LC away. The LI screen enemy
elephants and close order keeping them from play. The SHK then
manuver into position and start crashing into things on a narrow
frontage over a 2 bound period to start cascading waver checks in the
enemy formations. by contrast to your list, I would not want to run
First Crusade against this list; I have nothing to keep his masses of
LC from blowing away my flanks, I have as pitiful LI as he does, and
nothing in my army will be able to stand up to his SHK. I would end
up trying to fight SHK with LI in order to hopefully catch one of
them rallying forward.

IrgA HK L/sh vs RegB SHK L in frontal charge situation is 5@5 vs
5@3. He is sheldless and unimpetous, otherwise it is a push. Either
way both are tired and disordered after impact and thus out of the
game one way or another.

the abundance of LC keeps the the HK away so the SHK will do thier
job on the hapless infantry.

Wanax

[Larry Essick]

But what I am looking for is more something like the following, but
with more personal historical interest.

Any suggestions in this regard?

(LE) Early Teuts can do this. IMO you are trying too hard to match
the configuration of the example and not looking at the functionality
of it.

Notice that the Condotta has loads of regular troops. It is effective
because it can counter out of real trouble and/or maneuver during
approaches to minimize its troubles.

With irregulars you cannot do that. So, you have to build irregulars
with more bulk in the supporting units.

Try this:

CinC w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
SG w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
SG w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
3 units of 2E Crusader Knights as Irr B EHK
1 unit of 2E Brother Sergeants as Reg B HC
2 units of 4E Prussian Cavalry as Irr D JLS,Sh*
3 units of 6E Prussian Spearmen as Irr D JLS,Sh
2 units of 6E Bowmen as Irr D B,Sh*
AG w 1E Lithuanian Cavalry as Irr B LC
1 unit of 6E Lituaninan Cavalry as Irr B LC

This is 19 units with 6 2E EHK. It has adequate scouting. The foot
will hold up well enough in terrain.

You might consider the units marked *. These could be exchanged for
more Lithuanian LC. It depends on how you feel about using Irr D LC
and on your need for bows. Personally, I'd drop the bowmen for
another unit of Lithuanians -- but it is a matter of style.

Larry

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> Since the army has no screen of LI, you
> will have to use your SHK to kill LI. Of course it will be fun,
but
> at what price victory?
> The LC here are poorly armed, yet with high
> morale they can more likely take some abuse over time and occupy
> enemy. Here the player runs the Reg
> LC unit forward to take most of the shooting, then charged
impetously
> with the Irrg LC to sweep enemy LI and LC away. The LI screen
enemy
> elephants and close order keeping them from play. The SHK then
> manuver into position and start crashing into things on a narrow
> frontage over a 2 bound period to start cascading waver checks in
the
> enemy formations.

Thanks, Boyd.
So...
If I can find a list with SHK front backed by EHK/HK, preferably only
the front rank shielded but preferably with some Irr A SHK thrown in,
and better morale LC including some smaller missile-only Regs and
some larger Jav units to wipe away enemy lights, then I should be in
business.

Oddly enough HYWE has that Irish cavalry, just not enough of it to do
anything like what this Italian Condotta list does. And the Faux-
Francais can not be Irreg A like their "real" french counterparts.
And they utterly lack any Reg LC although they have a bit of useful
Reg LI.

And ditches, stakes, flaming pigs, stampeding cattle, boulders...

> IrgA HK L/sh vs RegB SHK L in frontal charge situation is 5@5 vs
> 5@3. He is sheldless and unimpetous, otherwise it is a push.
Either
> way both are tired and disordered after impact and thus out of the
> game one way or another.
> the abundance of LC keeps the the HK away so the SHK will do thier
> job on the hapless infantry.

Yeah I would run the Condotta with shields, but then the player whos
list this is is of course much better and knows this army well. And
what to give up for 9x6x2=108 points?

Would it work to take the Condotta list and give the SHK shields at
the expense of dropping the rear ranks to EHK? That would be getting
very close to what I am looking for, especially in a list that can
someday have Longbowmen _and_ Swiss (though neither would jump in
there right away - they just provide historical spice for non-tourney
play). Now I would just need those Irr A's, in enough numbers to
allow good chance over the course of a game of getting up rolls, for
taking my aggressions out!

Is there another list I might look at in this light, or can the Teuts
be fashioned like this somehow? I think no on the latter since to get
the decent LC you have to give up on mixed SHK/EHK units and having 9
shielded all-SHK is a big points problem.

Then do I have to pay the guy royalties for stealing his NICT list?
<g>

Thanks again.

[John Murphy]

For me in this army... way too much emphasis on the foot, not enough
knights, and no SHK front-rankers.

I am sure this list is a good one, coming from the acclaimed
Hochmeister of the Teuts, but not what I am looking for. I could play
HYWE and take the Irish LC and have a good counter-puncher in this
vein that makes me much happier, for that kind of list.

The option to exchange the bowmen for more Lithuanians is
interesting, but still not going to give me a counter-puncher that I
like better than HYWE, and not going to give me an attacker either.

If I did not want the SHK, and the Irreg A, I would be happy with
Later Crusaders as I ran them in this role actually.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> CinC w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
> SG w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
> SG w 1E Brother Knights as Reg A EHK
> 3 units of 2E Crusader Knights as Irr B EHK
> 1 unit of 2E Brother Sergeants as Reg B HC
> 2 units of 4E Prussian Cavalry as Irr D JLS,Sh*
> 3 units of 6E Prussian Spearmen as Irr D JLS,Sh
> 2 units of 6E Bowmen as Irr D B,Sh*
> AG w 1E Lithuanian Cavalry as Irr B LC
> 1 unit of 6E Lituaninan Cavalry as Irr B LC

[Larry Essick]

> For me in this army... way too much emphasis on the foot, not enough
> knights, and no SHK front-rankers.

Alright. :-)

You want SHK for front ranks and Irr A as well. You want regular LC
in small units. And, you want to be an agressive attacker....

Do you need to have mixed ranks of SHK with EHK or HK?

If you can live w/o the mixed ranks then Later Teutonic Order played
in the early period might have all that you are looking for. You
could mix HC with the SHK, but IMO that might be asking for trouble.

What about Later Polish? Tartars are regular and there is a lot of
SHK/EHK/HK mixing available. No Irr A though.

Larry

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 4 J Murphy said: ---

> But what I am looking for is more something like the following, but
> with more personal historical interest.
>
> Any suggestions in this regard?
>
> In that vein here is something from Ewan's critique of the 2003 NICT
> lists, quoted in full (sorry):
>
> Italian Condotta Book III, #169

If you like the general idea of Sean's Italian Condotta list, and are (rightly)
bolstered by Ewan's remarks about it's viability, then here's a suggestion.
Frank Gilson has a variant of 100 Year's War English worked up that may fit
what you're looking for.

The idea behind Frank's variant is to minimize the missile power of the army,
and maximize it's shock of impact power. It is far better than Sean's Italian
Condotta list for this, because you can get many units that are:
2 stands Reg B SHK L,Sh/HK L

That's about as point-optimized a knight unit as you're going to find.

You take enough longbowmen to provide support/screen as you move forward with
the knights, and frankly longbowmen are better at this than Sean's LC because
(a) they draw off enemy shooting, (b) they are effective shooters in their own
right, (c) they have real hand-to-hand capability against the unwary.

Using regular knights is important for several reasons. As Larry has noted, you
wanted the ability to make counters effectively and get out of harm's way. With
little in the army but knights and a few longbowmen, there will be places where
some of your knights are inevitably trying to stave off the enemy on your weak
flank while you try to stick it to him elsewhere. The regular knights are also
important because they can move up 160p and dismount, as opposed to only being
able to move 40p and dismount.

Finally, the English knights dismount in a powerful configuration: front rank
SHI 2HCW, back rank EHI JLS.

Frank, maybe you can post your version to the mailing list here?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 4:03:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> Using regular knights is important for several reasons.>>

While I agree with the analysis that follows, I would not typically take any
more regular K blocks than I could get generals for. At some point fighting
another medieval player, you'll have to square off with an enemy SHK or shove
back a spear/pike block and you need that extra +2 from impetuous to do it. I
prefer a mix of Reg K with subgenerals and Irr K without than one or the other.

Jon

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On May 4 J Murphy said: ---
> Frank, maybe you can post your version to the mailing list here?
>
>
> -Mark Stone

As I look through the book, I noticed that if you really want to run
something different than everyone else using the LMI B, SHK, LC B
combination, then perhaps you need to look to Later Polish.

No IrregA but who needs it when you have Irreg B and B armed LMI and
LC. Units of IregB SHK/HK L/sh. In the later options half can be
regular.

the LC are a mix of IrgC LC B to IrgB LC J/L or B/sh.

Plenty of LI, HC, and other foot options. Even some cannons if you
feel like it.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/4/2004 4:03:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@d... writes:
>
> > Using regular knights is important for several reasons.>>
>
> While I agree with the analysis that follows, I would not typically
take any more regular K blocks than I could get generals for. At
some point fighting another medieval player, you'll have to square
off with an enemy SHK or shove back a spear/pike block and you need
that extra +2 from impetuous to do it. I prefer a mix of Reg K with
subgenerals and Irr K without than one or the other.
>
> Jon

I agree, or even Irreg SHK and reg other mounted like HC. the reg
stuff just is handy to get in and out of trouble and act as a
closer. You need the pounding hooves of the K-niggits.

Wanax

[John Murphy]

I just looked over the Medieval Spanish list and the
Aragonese/Portuguese seem to have the ability to do something like
this with a mix of Reg & Irreg mixed-armor knights and a number of
options for building LC without a whole lot of other required types.
Although the though of running these with no moogs or minimal
longbowmen is a bit weird.

Mark, thanks, you have hit pretty much all the salient points I am
looking for very accurately. I believe you understand where I am
coming from. Heck, this is several times now. Introduce yourself to
me at Historicon or Cold Wars sometime when you are back East. I'm
the fat guy getting his clock cleaned!

Okay, Frank and Mark, I am salivating over the prospects of Frank's
list for obvious reasons. Yes I will miss out on the Irreg A's. Okay,
out of all the things I was hoping for that is maybe the least
important. Interesting to see how the difference between the LC and
the longbows plays out in Frank's list.

I was almost thinking of doing something like this but could not
really visualize how the LB, reduced so much in numbers, could still
hold together enough to set up the knights. Also, a "trade secret"
(lol... like I actually win enough games to have any) on my HYWE is
the shortage of stuff to force march, and scouting points - kind
of "enjoying" the weaknesses inherent in your army selection, so the
subbing of longbows for LC here is going to be interesting.

But I'd like to see how it works. Could take a bit of explaination
though.

A real neat thing though is that in a 2-list tourney I can run
something like what you are saying alongside my standard HYWE counter-
puncher.

And it will save me the cost of paying royalties to Sean!


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> If you like the general idea of Sean's Italian Condotta list, and
are (rightly)
> bolstered by Ewan's remarks about it's viability, then here's a
suggestion.
> Frank Gilson has a variant of 100 Year's War English worked up that
may fit
> what you're looking for.
>
> The idea behind Frank's variant is to minimize the missile power of
the army,
> and maximize it's shock of impact power. It is far better than
Sean's Italian
> Condotta list for this, because you can get many units that are:
> 2 stands Reg B SHK L,Sh/HK L
>
> That's about as point-optimized a knight unit as you're going to
find.
>
> You take enough longbowmen to provide support/screen as you move
forward with
> the knights, and frankly longbowmen are better at this than Sean's
LC because
> (a) they draw off enemy shooting, (b) they are effective shooters
in their own
> right, (c) they have real hand-to-hand capability against the
unwary.
>
> Using regular knights is important for several reasons. As Larry
has noted, you
> wanted the ability to make counters effectively and get out of
harm's way. With
> little in the army but knights and a few longbowmen, there will be
places where
> some of your knights are inevitably trying to stave off the enemy
on your weak
> flank while you try to stick it to him elsewhere. The regular
knights are also
> important because they can move up 160p and dismount, as opposed to
only being
> able to move 40p and dismount.
>
> Finally, the English knights dismount in a powerful configuration:
front rank
> SHI 2HCW, back rank EHI JLS.
>
> Frank, maybe you can post your version to the mailing list here?
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Well, it is easy enough to take a HYWE or Free Company list, or even
Italian Condotta, and change some of the non-general units to Irregs.
The points typically work out pretty close across troop types
although the HYWE, and in some allied contingents of HYWE, Reg back-
rankers in particular are very well-pointed and that is hard to match
by dropping an Irreg back-rank to EHK with shields.

There is only the balance to consider between maneuverability and the
first-charge +2. Playing too many Byz armies, I tend to grab the
maneuver power first and plan on making too many charges over a game -
hopefully some from outside enemy charge zones - to place too much
importance on the impetuousity, although it is nice to have generals
that can charge and make everyone impetuous when you need it.

All that said there are some things that cry out for the sheer power
of Ireg A knights that roll up!

BTW I'll look at the Poles too.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> You need the pounding hooves of the K-niggits.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 4:36:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> There is only the balance to consider between
> maneuverability and the
> first-charge +2.>>

The true art of Warrior knighthood is to execute a second impetuous charge....
:)

[John Murphy]

Ha! Yes, I wish that I could escape unscathed from combat and still
be at 4 FP!

On the other hand the easy way to do this is not hit your target on
the first charge. Simple!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The true art of Warrior knighthood is to execute a second impetuous
charge.... :)