Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted knights
are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.

2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI. This
is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
stop looking at specialized jousting armor.

3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this happened,
way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing. Not
very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited to
only those armies.

4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to historical
examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
being able to dismount with LTS.

5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while mounted.
This would make these units "special" over other knight units. Think
this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the front,
with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units spoken
of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump over
irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.

6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.

[joncleaves]

Good stuff. This will be one of the top mails I go to when I get back to
x-rules, thanks, Greg.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:42:57 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions


1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted knights
are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.

2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI. This
is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
stop looking at specialized jousting armor.

3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this happened,
way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing. Not
very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited to
only those armies.

4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to historical
examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
being able to dismount with LTS.

5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while mounted.
This would make these units "special" over other knight units. Think
this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the front,
with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units spoken
of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump over
irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.

6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

I will test this stuff in friendly games, and let you know how things
turn out.

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Good stuff. This will be one of the top mails I go to when I get
back to x-rules, thanks, Greg.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:42:57 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions
>
>
> 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
> that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
> Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
knights
> are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
>
> 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI.
This
> is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
> stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
>
> 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
happened,
> way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing.
Not
> very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited
to
> only those armies.
>
> 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
historical
> examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
> being able to dismount with LTS.
>
> 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
mounted.
> This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
Think
> this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
> The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
front,
> with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
spoken
> of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
> able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
> not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump
over
> irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
>
> 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

AWESOME! Music to my ears.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:14:26 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions


I will test this stuff in friendly games, and let you know how things
turn out.

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Good stuff. This will be one of the top mails I go to when I get
back to x-rules, thanks, Greg.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:42:57 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions
>
>
> 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
> that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
> Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
knights
> are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
>
> 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI.
This
> is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
> stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
>
> 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
happened,
> way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing.
Not
> very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited
to
> only those armies.
>
> 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
historical
> examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
> being able to dismount with LTS.
>
> 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
mounted.
> This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
Think
> this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
> The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
front,
> with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
spoken
> of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
> able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
> not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump
over
> irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
>
> 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Mallard]

** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot could be upgraded to
fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even given an extra
+1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly bodyguard or elite
units that currently get trounced on the table by more mundane units.
The easiest solution would be a simple modification to combat mods +1 for
regular elite foot.
So lists would just need the word elite added to descriptions.

mark mallard
**


In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted knights
are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.

2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI. This
is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
stop looking at specialized jousting armor.

3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this happened,
way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing. Not
very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited to
only those armies.

4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to historical
examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
being able to dismount with LTS.

5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while mounted.
This would make these units "special" over other knight units. Think
this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the front,
with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units spoken
of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump over
irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.

6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.












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

[Chris Bump]

I never run knights, and at first glance this looks like good stuff
Greg. I do disagree with your notion about HC/MC in the rear ranks
of EHK though. I think that the formations should have the
flexibility to represent the fact that Knights were often in short
supply and were backed by less heavily armored/armed troops. Maybe
as you game test this, my assumption being that you have or will test
these suggestions, you can try various limits on how many units can
be so ordered, or maybe only allow EHK and below to have HC/MC rear
rankers and require SHK to run in uniformly armored blocks. Just a
thought.

But I do agree with your philosopy here.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
wrote:
>
> 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
> that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
> Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
knights
> are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
>
> 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI.
This
> is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
> stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
>
> 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
happened,
> way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing.
Not
> very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited
to
> only those armies.
>
> 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
historical
> examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
> being able to dismount with LTS.
>
> 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
mounted.
> This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
Think
> this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
> The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
front,
> with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
spoken
> of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
> able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
> not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump
over
> irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
>
> 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.
>

[Greg Regets]

Actually Chris, we are on completely the same page ... my thought in
the earlier post were strictly preliminary. Much more detailed work
would be needed before a formal presentation to FHE woudl be in order.

The overriding principle of all this, is that this isn't an attempt
to "soup-up" the knight ... it is an attempt to "history-up" the
knight. There will be instances where the knight will get a lift, and
instances where he might take a bit of a hit ... but in all things,
the attempt will be to more accurately represent knightly chivalry on
the Warrior battlefield. I will give two examples: one from each end
of the spectrum.

Clearly, allowing regular knights to charge impetuously while
dismounted, and fight with 1.5 ranks will drastically improve their
productivity on the battlefield, but that is strictly a result of
doing what is historically accurate. When you look at history, the
vast majority of accounts of knights dismounting to fight on foot,
speaks of units that would be classified in Warrior as regulars. On
point, you have to look long and hard to find accounts of the mass of
feudal knights (that would generally be irregulars) even being
willing to dismount at all. I'm sure many of us have read Frossart's
account of Bertrand de Gueslin (sp) fighting against the Black Prince
and Pedro the Cruel at Najara, pleading with the Spanish knights to
fight the English on foot, only to be told rather curtly, "Chivalry
demands a mounted presence!" So, looking at this historically, and
appying common sense, shouldn't the guys that did this more
regularly, be better at it? Shouldn't they have a reason to do it?
You may not agree with that logic, but it is logic, and should at
least be presented as an option for an FHE list rule.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have the lesser armed back
rankers. Just to elaborate, I agree with you completely about the
back rank lesser armed squires and knights, and in the instance you
presented, these would be maintained. An example that would not be
maintained (again, these are just suggestions), would be armies like
the German armies, were sergeants and Ministeriales were not even
part of the Gleven system, and not subject to the feudal muster. The
very reason German Barons kept bodies of troops outside the Gleven
system, was the ability to maintain a military presence at home,
while the knights were off at war. In many instances,
German "sergeants" were constables, retired soldiers, etc ... Now,
did these guys sometimes participate in battles ... of course they
did ... but that's a far cry from making an army that has ten units
of SHK, with HC sergeants in the back ranks. Again, these guys were
not even part of the Gleven system. It's not historical to make that
the "backbone" of a German army. What the German player might have to
do is adopt the more historically accurate SHK/EHK or even SHK/HK
units, that would represent knights, with lesser knights and squires
in the back ranks ... these all being part of the Gleven system.

There will be a much more formal and complete presentation of this
submitted to FHE in the future ... at this point, these are all just
discussion points.

Thanks for the input ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@...> wrote:
>
> I never run knights, and at first glance this looks like good stuff
> Greg. I do disagree with your notion about HC/MC in the rear ranks
> of EHK though. I think that the formations should have the
> flexibility to represent the fact that Knights were often in short
> supply and were backed by less heavily armored/armed troops. Maybe
> as you game test this, my assumption being that you have or will
test
> these suggestions, you can try various limits on how many units can
> be so ordered, or maybe only allow EHK and below to have HC/MC rear
> rankers and require SHK to run in uniformly armored blocks. Just a
> thought.
>
> But I do agree with your philosopy here.
> Chris
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the
game,
> > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars.
Use
> > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
> knights
> > are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
> >
> > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI.
> This
> > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor,
and
> > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> >
> > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
> happened,
> > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing.
> Not
> > very many armies did this historically, and this should be
limited
> to
> > only those armies.
> >
> > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
> historical
> > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK,
HK,
> > being able to dismount with LTS.
> >
> > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
> mounted.
> > This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
> Think
> > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited
thing.
> > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
> front,
> > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
> spoken
> > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that
were
> > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over,
it's
> > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump
> over
> > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> >
> > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5
ranks.
> >
>

[joncleaves]

This is great stuff. And proceeding in exactly the right and best way to see
eventual inclusion.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:18:36 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions


Actually Chris, we are on completely the same page ... my thought in
the earlier post were strictly preliminary. Much more detailed work
would be needed before a formal presentation to FHE woudl be in order.

The overriding principle of all this, is that this isn't an attempt
to "soup-up" the knight ... it is an attempt to "history-up" the
knight. There will be instances where the knight will get a lift, and
instances where he might take a bit of a hit ... but in all things,
the attempt will be to more accurately represent knightly chivalry on
the Warrior battlefield. I will give two examples: one from each end
of the spectrum.

Clearly, allowing regular knights to charge impetuously while
dismounted, and fight with 1.5 ranks will drastically improve their
productivity on the battlefield, but that is strictly a result of
doing what is historically accurate. When you look at history, the
vast majority of accounts of knights dismounting to fight on foot,
speaks of units that would be classified in Warrior as regulars. On
point, you have to look long and hard to find accounts of the mass of
feudal knights (that would generally be irregulars) even being
willing to dismount at all. I'm sure many of us have read Frossart's
account of Bertrand de Gueslin (sp) fighting against the Black Prince
and Pedro the Cruel at Najara, pleading with the Spanish knights to
fight the English on foot, only to be told rather curtly, "Chivalry
demands a mounted presence!" So, looking at this historically, and
appying common sense, shouldn't the guys that did this more
regularly, be better at it? Shouldn't they have a reason to do it?
You may not agree with that logic, but it is logic, and should at
least be presented as an option for an FHE list rule.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have the lesser armed back
rankers. Just to elaborate, I agree with you completely about the
back rank lesser armed squires and knights, and in the instance you
presented, these would be maintained. An example that would not be
maintained (again, these are just suggestions), would be armies like
the German armies, were sergeants and Ministeriales were not even
part of the Gleven system, and not subject to the feudal muster. The
very reason German Barons kept bodies of troops outside the Gleven
system, was the ability to maintain a military presence at home,
while the knights were off at war. In many instances,
German "sergeants" were constables, retired soldiers, etc ... Now,
did these guys sometimes participate in battles ... of course they
did ... but that's a far cry from making an army that has ten units
of SHK, with HC sergeants in the back ranks. Again, these guys were
not even part of the Gleven system. It's not historical to make that
the "backbone" of a German army. What the German player might have to
do is adopt the more historically accurate SHK/EHK or even SHK/HK
units, that would represent knights, with lesser knights and squires
in the back ranks ... these all being part of the Gleven system.

There will be a much more formal and complete presentation of this
submitted to FHE in the future ... at this point, these are all just
discussion points.

Thanks for the input ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@...> wrote:
>
> I never run knights, and at first glance this looks like good stuff
> Greg. I do disagree with your notion about HC/MC in the rear ranks
> of EHK though. I think that the formations should have the
> flexibility to represent the fact that Knights were often in short
> supply and were backed by less heavily armored/armed troops. Maybe
> as you game test this, my assumption being that you have or will
test
> these suggestions, you can try various limits on how many units can
> be so ordered, or maybe only allow EHK and below to have HC/MC rear
> rankers and require SHK to run in uniformly armored blocks. Just a
> thought.
>
> But I do agree with your philosopy here.
> Chris
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the
game,
> > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars.
Use
> > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
> knights
> > are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
> >
> > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI.
> This
> > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor,
and
> > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> >
> > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
> happened,
> > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing.
> Not
> > very many armies did this historically, and this should be
limited
> to
> > only those armies.
> >
> > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
> historical
> > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK,
HK,
> > being able to dismount with LTS.
> >
> > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
> mounted.
> > This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
> Think
> > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited
thing.
> > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
> front,
> > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
> spoken
> > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that
were
> > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over,
it's
> > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump
> over
> > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> >
> > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5
ranks.
> >
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Perhaps something along this line might allow us to see Reg A Varangians
and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea with the +1 in combat.

kw

markmallard7@... wrote:

** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot could be upgraded to
fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even given an extra
+1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly bodyguard or elite
units that currently get trounced on the table by more mundane units.
The easiest solution would be a simple modification to combat mods +1 for
regular elite foot.
So lists would just need the word elite added to descriptions.

mark mallard
**


In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted knights
are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.

2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI. This
is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
stop looking at specialized jousting armor.

3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this happened,
way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing. Not
very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited to
only those armies.

4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to historical
examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
being able to dismount with LTS.

5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while mounted.
This would make these units "special" over other knight units. Think
this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the front,
with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units spoken
of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump over
irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.

6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.












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



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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





---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/3/2006 16:46:47 Central Standard Time,
Turnerm@... writes:

I retired 1 1/2 years ago and work on Ft Leavenworth, Jon Cleaves
and I were W.P. classmates, and have gamed for years, he uses me as
a Warrior tackling dummy. (as revenge for victories in other
systems!) LOL

Mike Turner>>
[
In his dotage, Mike sometimes loses track of the truth....lol But he's a
good dude!

J






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

It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in combat. Irr A
get a +2 just for rolling up.

First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history rarely lost in
unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the Successor Wars
after Alexanders death.

It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting ability of Reg A
troops considering the their extra cost.

The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.

John S.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Perhaps something along this line might allow us to see Reg A
Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea with the +1
in combat.
>
> kw
>
> markmallard7@... wrote:
>
> ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot could be
upgraded to
> fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even given an
extra
> +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly
bodyguard or elite
> units that currently get trounced on the table by more mundane units.
> The easiest solution would be a simple modification to combat mods
+1 for
> regular elite foot.
> So lists would just need the word elite added to descriptions.
>
> mark mallard
> **
>
>
> In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
> greg.regets@... writes:
>
> 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in Warrior
> works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the game,
> that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars. Use
> Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted knights
> are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
>
> 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted SHI. This
> is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor, and
> stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
>
> 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in back,
> should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this happened,
> way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points thing. Not
> very many armies did this historically, and this should be limited to
> only those armies.
>
> 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to historical
> examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK, HK,
> being able to dismount with LTS.
>
> 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while mounted.
> This would make these units "special" over other knight units. Think
> this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited thing.
> The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the front,
> with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units spoken
> of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that were
> able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over, it's
> not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big bump over
> irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
>
> 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5 ranks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Mike Turner]

7th ID, When were you in the Division?

9th Regt, and 1-9 IN, 1989-1991

Mike Turner

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
<john_steil@...> wrote:
>
> It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in combat. Irr A
> get a +2 just for rolling up.
>
> First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history rarely lost
in
> unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the Successor Wars
> after Alexanders death.
>
> It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting ability of
Reg A
> troops considering the their extra cost.
>
> The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.
>
> John S.
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > Perhaps something along this line might allow us to see
Reg A
> Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea with the
+1
> in combat.
> >
> > kw
> >
> > markmallard7@ wrote:
> >
> > ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot could be
> upgraded to
> > fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even
given an
> extra
> > +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly
> bodyguard or elite
> > units that currently get trounced on the table by more mundane
units.
> > The easiest solution would be a simple modification to combat
mods
> +1 for
> > regular elite foot.
> > So lists would just need the word elite added to descriptions.
> >
> > mark mallard
> > **
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
> > greg.regets@ writes:
> >
> > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in
Warrior
> > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This would
> > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the
game,
> > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted irregulars.
Use
> > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
knights
> > are the military order knights. This is historically backwards.
> >
> > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted
SHI. This
> > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat armor,
and
> > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> >
> > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in
back,
> > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
happened,
> > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points
thing. Not
> > very many armies did this historically, and this should be
limited to
> > only those armies.
> >
> > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and the
> > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
historical
> > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK, EHK,
HK,
> > being able to dismount with LTS.
> >
> > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
mounted.
> > This would make these units "special" over other knight units.
Think
> > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited
thing.
> > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in the
front,
> > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to take
> > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
spoken
> > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that
were
> > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over,
it's
> > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big
bump over
> > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> >
> > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5
ranks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

7th ID 2-32 Inf Buccaneer Battalion which converted to the 3-27 Inf
Wolfhounds. I was there from 1983 to 1987. That is where I got
hooked on ancient miniatures 7th Edition Rules by I think Paul
Jordan at the Armed Forces YMCA. I gamed with Dave Laureman and Dale
Shanek out there. I am trying to get back into the addiction after a
18 year hiatus.

You know it is a small world, my daughters best friend's father was
stationed there with the 2-9th Inf Manchu's at the same time that I
was there. I was an evaluator for his unit when they had a battalion
live fire at Ft. Hunter-Ligget that killed 72 head of cattle in 1985.

Where are you at now Mike?

John Steil


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@...>
wrote:
>
> 7th ID, When were you in the Division?
>
> 9th Regt, and 1-9 IN, 1989-1991
>
> Mike Turner
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> <john_steil@> wrote:
> >
> > It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in combat.
Irr A
> > get a +2 just for rolling up.
> >
> > First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history rarely
lost
> in
> > unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the Successor
Wars
> > after Alexanders death.
> >
> > It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting ability of
> Reg A
> > troops considering the their extra cost.
> >
> > The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.
> >
> > John S.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > <jwilkinson62@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > Perhaps something along this line might allow us to see
> Reg A
> > Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea with
the
> +1
> > in combat.
> > >
> > > kw
> > >
> > > markmallard7@ wrote:
> > >
> > > ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot could
be
> > upgraded to
> > > fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even
> given an
> > extra
> > > +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly
> > bodyguard or elite
> > > units that currently get trounced on the table by more
mundane
> units.
> > > The easiest solution would be a simple modification to combat
> mods
> > +1 for
> > > regular elite foot.
> > > So lists would just need the word elite added to descriptions.
> > >
> > > mark mallard
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
> > > greg.regets@ writes:
> > >
> > > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even when
> > > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in
> Warrior
> > > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This
would
> > > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in the
> game,
> > > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted
irregulars.
> Use
> > > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous dismounted
> knights
> > > are the military order knights. This is historically
backwards.
> > >
> > > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted
> SHI. This
> > > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat
armor,
> and
> > > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> > >
> > > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in
> back,
> > > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
> happened,
> > > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points
> thing. Not
> > > very many armies did this historically, and this should be
> limited to
> > > only those armies.
> > >
> > > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and
the
> > > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> > > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
> historical
> > > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK,
EHK,
> HK,
> > > being able to dismount with LTS.
> > >
> > > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks while
> mounted.
> > > This would make these units "special" over other knight
units.
> Think
> > > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very limited
> thing.
> > > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in
the
> front,
> > > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to
take
> > > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite units
> spoken
> > > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units that
> were
> > > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it over,
> it's
> > > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big
> bump over
> > > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> > >
> > > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with 1.5
> ranks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

[Mike Turner]

The infamous COWFEX, well remembered.

While I was there, the YMCA was still the wargamer focal point, but
the popular systems were Johnny Reb, then transitioned to Napolean's
Battles.

I retired 1 1/2 years ago and work on Ft Leavenworth, Jon Cleaves
and I were W.P. classmates, and have gamed for years, he uses me as
a Warrior tackling dummy. (as revenge for victories in other
systems!) LOL

Mike Turner

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
<john_steil@...> wrote:
>
> 7th ID 2-32 Inf Buccaneer Battalion which converted to the 3-27
Inf
> Wolfhounds. I was there from 1983 to 1987. That is where I got
> hooked on ancient miniatures 7th Edition Rules by I think Paul
> Jordan at the Armed Forces YMCA. I gamed with Dave Laureman and
Dale
> Shanek out there. I am trying to get back into the addiction after
a
> 18 year hiatus.
>
> You know it is a small world, my daughters best friend's father
was
> stationed there with the 2-9th Inf Manchu's at the same time that
I
> was there. I was an evaluator for his unit when they had a
battalion
> live fire at Ft. Hunter-Ligget that killed 72 head of cattle in
1985.
>
> Where are you at now Mike?
>
> John Steil
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 7th ID, When were you in the Division?
> >
> > 9th Regt, and 1-9 IN, 1989-1991
> >
> > Mike Turner
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> > <john_steil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in combat.
> Irr A
> > > get a +2 just for rolling up.
> > >
> > > First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history rarely
> lost
> > in
> > > unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the Successor
> Wars
> > > after Alexanders death.
> > >
> > > It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting ability
of
> > Reg A
> > > troops considering the their extra cost.
> > >
> > > The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.
> > >
> > > John S.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > > <jwilkinson62@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark,
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps something along this line might allow us to
see
> > Reg A
> > > Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea with
> the
> > +1
> > > in combat.
> > > >
> > > > kw
> > > >
> > > > markmallard7@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot
could
> be
> > > upgraded to
> > > > fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or even
> > given an
> > > extra
> > > > +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly
> > > bodyguard or elite
> > > > units that currently get trounced on the table by more
> mundane
> > units.
> > > > The easiest solution would be a simple modification to
combat
> > mods
> > > +1 for
> > > > regular elite foot.
> > > > So lists would just need the word elite added to
descriptions.
> > > >
> > > > mark mallard
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
> > > > greg.regets@ writes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even
when
> > > > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in
> > Warrior
> > > > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This
> would
> > > > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in
the
> > game,
> > > > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted
> irregulars.
> > Use
> > > > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous
dismounted
> > knights
> > > > are the military order knights. This is historically
> backwards.
> > > >
> > > > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for dismounted
> > SHI. This
> > > > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat
> armor,
> > and
> > > > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants in
> > back,
> > > > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when this
> > happened,
> > > > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a points
> > thing. Not
> > > > very many armies did this historically, and this should be
> > limited to
> > > > only those armies.
> > > >
> > > > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and
> the
> > > > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The JLS
> > > > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
> > historical
> > > > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK,
> EHK,
> > HK,
> > > > being able to dismount with LTS.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks
while
> > mounted.
> > > > This would make these units "special" over other knight
> units.
> > Think
> > > > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very
limited
> > thing.
> > > > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A in
> the
> > front,
> > > > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to
> take
> > > > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite
units
> > spoken
> > > > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units
that
> > were
> > > > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it
over,
> > it's
> > > > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty big
> > bump over
> > > > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> > > >
> > > > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with
1.5
> > ranks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Mike Turner]

What? It hasn't been a 1 1/2 years since we retired?

Hey, I got hardware to prove some of those wins!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/3/2006 16:46:47 Central Standard Time,
> Turnerm@... writes:
>
> I retired 1 1/2 years ago and work on Ft Leavenworth, Jon Cleaves
> and I were W.P. classmates, and have gamed for years, he uses me
as
> a Warrior tackling dummy. (as revenge for victories in other
> systems!) LOL
>
> Mike Turner>>
> [
> In his dotage, Mike sometimes loses track of the truth....lol
But he's a
> good dude!
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>