Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Like Mark, I had to laugh a bit when I read that--Mark was always the
guy in university with the least knights and the most support troops!

We spent a lot of time in University (too much time) trying to figure
out how to make Knights work (in a time when very few people played
them, which Mark doesn't mention) and every iteration had fewer Knights
with more units and tactics devoted to putting the knights in just right.

My feeling is that Dave S. just about perfected this, keeping most of
his knights in 2E units with a Generals so that all 3 or 4 units of
knights could staff move/move/charge for the maximum impact from the
deepest reserve. In fact, I think this warrior tactic very nicely
recreates the use of Knights by the better professional commanders of
the day.

For my money, the best of the Knight armies is either Pa. Byz or
Kom. Byz--other knight armies have little that can face the horde of LC
on a large table, and you have plenty of other troops that can influence
or even beat most of the all-stars of the tournament universe. Not to
mention the pure historical fascination of Manuel I Komnenos... the
chivalrous Byzantine.

Chris C.

>
>

[Bill Chriss]

> > For my money, the best of the Knight armies is either Pa. Byz or
> Kom. Byz--other knight armies have little that can face the horde of LC
> on a large table, and you have plenty of other troops that can influence
> or even beat most of the all-stars of the tournament universe. Not to
> mention the pure historical fascination of Manuel I Komnenos... the
> chivalrous Byzantine.
>
> Chris C.
>


I cannot resist commenting here. Manuel was indeed a chivalrous Byzantine,
but less popular among the Greeks than his father John (Good John) and his
venerable grandfather Alexios I Komnenos. For you painters out there,
Manuel was described as very handsome and tall by Byzantine chroniclers,
with an unusually dark or bronze complexion. John was known for his piety
and intelligence as well as for being a good commander. Alexios is most
highly respected by byzantinists because he essentially postponed the
empire's collapse for about 100 years by reforming imperial administration
and rebuilding the army, even though he came to the throne in middle age
and during extremely tough times (post-Mantzikert). He was courageous and,
for a Byzantine, scrupulous. He also founded several monasteries, a
tradition continued by his son John. Manuel is less popular due precisely
to his westernizing tendencies. He even offered ecclesiastical reunion
with Rome in exchange for western political alliances, a thing highly
controversial at the time, and only obliquely hinted at earlier by Alexios
with no real intention of following through (as his countrymen well
understood and approved), absent substantial theological concessions on
the other side.

The Komneni, in my view, were even greater leaders than the Macedonian
dynaasty that preceded them in the 10th century, which most consider to be
the zenith of Byzantine power. While Basil Bulgarochtonos was a hell of a
general, he was extremely ruthless and violent and not very well educated.
Hence, I've always enjoyed playing Komnenans over Nikephorians any day.
It's a bit more of a challenge with less obvious killer troop types (kind
of a nice analogy to the difference in style between the Komnenan and
Macedonian/Nikian dynasties), but players with experience running this
army and its successors (Paleologans, etc) have learned to exploit its
greater divrsity and subtlety to advantage--Greg Regets being a prime
example. Perhaps you would like to carry this thought a bit further,
Greg.....


-Greek

[Greg Regets]

Well, thanks for the kind words Bill, but the truth is that my
success with the then Comnenan Byzantine list (old TOG 6th Edition
list), had as much to do with the tournament format as anything else.

Back then, we played in an environment where positive points were
used for scoring, rather than raw kills. The Comnenan, at least how I
played it, rarely if ever gave up even a single unit, so anything I
scored went literally 100% in the positive point kitty. Then the
playoffs were winners play winners Swiss, so you really didn't need
big scores on Sunday to win the tournament. I was fortunate to win a
boatload of them with this army in TOG 7th, including some pretty big
ones in Austin ... really as big in player count as anything run by
NASAMW.

Given todays NASAMW scoring method, that places much less emphasis on
defense (it's a bit like playing arena football if you ask me), I
really don't see the new Komnenan as quite as much of a going
concern, when compared to the Pal. and Nike. They are just better
armies, in my opinion. The Kom's. just have too many and too porr
quality minimums. You will be tactically inflexible with this army,
in my view. Good players will know what you will field and know how
to go after you.

That said, I'm doing Early Byz., which is probably inferior to all of
them. Lets just say Byzantine players are like that ... they play
what period interests them the most.





- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
>
> > > For my money, the best of the Knight armies is either Pa.
Byz or
> > Kom. Byz--other knight armies have little that can face the
horde of LC
> > on a large table, and you have plenty of other troops that can
influence
> > or even beat most of the all-stars of the tournament universe.
Not to
> > mention the pure historical fascination of Manuel I Komnenos...
the
> > chivalrous Byzantine.
> >
> > Chris C.
> >
>
>
> I cannot resist commenting here. Manuel was indeed a chivalrous
Byzantine,
> but less popular among the Greeks than his father John (Good John)
and his
> venerable grandfather Alexios I Komnenos. For you painters out
there,
> Manuel was described as very handsome and tall by Byzantine
chroniclers,
> with an unusually dark or bronze complexion. John was known for his
piety
> and intelligence as well as for being a good commander. Alexios is
most
> highly respected by byzantinists because he essentially postponed
the
> empire's collapse for about 100 years by reforming imperial
administration
> and rebuilding the army, even though he came to the throne in
middle age
> and during extremely tough times (post-Mantzikert). He was
courageous and,
> for a Byzantine, scrupulous. He also founded several monasteries, a
> tradition continued by his son John. Manuel is less popular due
precisely
> to his westernizing tendencies. He even offered ecclesiastical
reunion
> with Rome in exchange for western political alliances, a thing
highly
> controversial at the time, and only obliquely hinted at earlier by
Alexios
> with no real intention of following through (as his countrymen well
> understood and approved), absent substantial theological
concessions on
> the other side.
>
> The Komneni, in my view, were even greater leaders than the
Macedonian
> dynaasty that preceded them in the 10th century, which most
consider to be
> the zenith of Byzantine power. While Basil Bulgarochtonos was a
hell of a
> general, he was extremely ruthless and violent and not very well
educated.
> Hence, I've always enjoyed playing Komnenans over Nikephorians any
day.
> It's a bit more of a challenge with less obvious killer troop types
(kind
> of a nice analogy to the difference in style between the Komnenan
and
> Macedonian/Nikian dynasties), but players with experience running
this
> army and its successors (Paleologans, etc) have learned to exploit
its
> greater divrsity and subtlety to advantage--Greg Regets being a
prime
> example. Perhaps you would like to carry this thought a bit further,
> Greg.....
>
>
> -Greek
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On November 29 Christian Cameron said: ---

> We spent a lot of time in University (too much time) trying to figure
> out how to make Knights work (in a time when very few people played
> them, which Mark doesn't mention) and every iteration had fewer Knights
> with more units and tactics devoted to putting the knights in just right.

I want to respond a bit to what Christian says here, and to what Greg said
earlier.

We played knight armies almost exclusively at University of Rochester in the
late 80s because we were led into miniatures by a bunch of guys who were avid
students of medieval history (at a university with one of the best North
American departments in medieval history).

This was early 7th. Lance-armed cav didn't fight in a rank and a half. Like
everyone else, we pretty quickly settled into playing Teutonic Knights or
Sicilian Hohenstafen as the tournament worthy armies, with occaisional forays
into Burdundian Ordannance and some of the lesser German armies. All of these
guys got wedging cavalry, which was the only way back then to get the rank and
a half effect.

But we were driven by an interest in history. That meant we kept experimenting
with non-wedging knight armies. My first army was Theodoran Byzantine, the WRG
predecessor to FHE's Later Paleologan Byzantine. You got 2 stands of Reg C
German SHK who could wedge, and a bunch of non-wedging EHK. You were required
to take 6 stands of Varangians: Reg A HI 2HCW,Sh. Expensive, and worthless.

So what Christian says is right, with a caveat: certainly if you're playing
knights who only fight in one rank, you want to minimize the knights and
maximize the support troops. Having learned to play that way was an incredibly
valuable lesson, because it taught us all the value of support troops. Now,
when all knights effectively "wedge", I still find myself evaluating knight
armies by looking at the support troops first.

Having said that, I still think that a balanced knight army needs a critical
mass of lancers. The best of our group, Dave Stier, typically runs armies with
about 7 units of wedging cavalry (on 1600 points). Dave would argue that 5
units is an absolute minimum. This is oversimplifying, but the rationale is
something like this: you need 2 or 3 knights to go in at a time and place of
your choosing, set up by your support troops, but you also need 2 or 3
"response" units to hover behind the lines and react to what your opponent
does. So, to me, 5 or 6 such units seems about right.

When I get a moment (work's been a bit crazy lately), I'll try and post my Later
Paleologan Byzantine army and comment on why it's put together the way it is.
That may shed some light on Greg's original question, or at least push the
discussion along in some interesting directions.


-Mark Stone

[Bill Chriss]

Mark said:

>My first army was Theodoran Byzantine, the WRG predecessor to FHE's
>Later Paleologan Byzantine. You got 2 stands of Reg C German SHK who
could >wedge, and a bunch of non-wedging EHK. You were required to take
6 stands >of Varangians: Reg A HI 2HCW,Sh. Expensive, and worthless.
>
>

While the new Warrior lists make a debate on this point academic, I would
like to say that I agree on expensive but disagree on worthless. Two units
of three elements each, run in column, do have utility in protecting
flanks or holding areas of the map, as they are difficult to shoot up,
being only one element wide shielded HI, and they don't waver test for
cav, being close. Being A's, they don't care about routng friends much and
can serve as a ralying point in reserve or on rear flanks to avoiud
cavalry enflanking maneuvers. This is done by unfurling the three ranks
into line in one maneuver with full movement distance (or directional
change) remaining before or after such. And they're tough to break on
contact, being HI w/2HCW and dishing out pretty high factors against all
comers.

While few are optimal in open tournament settings (and HI Varangians
certainly are not), most trop types in Warrior do have some substantial
utility, particularly against historical opponents, but even in open
settings.

-Greek

[Mark Stone]

--- On Dec 1 I said: ---

>> You were required to take 6 stands of Varangians: Reg A HI 2HCW,Sh.
>> Expensive, and worthless.

--- To which Greek replied: ---

> While the new Warrior lists make a debate on this point academic, I would
> like to say that I agree on expensive but disagree on worthless.

Sorry, they're worthless. Even going back to the 7th rules under which that list
was written:
- any lance-armed cav beat them at contact;
- Normans rout them at contact 25% of the time;
- Irr LMI JLS,Sh - the scum of the Dark Ages - beat them at contact, even with a
down roll.

That sounds pretty worthless to me, certainly not worth the cost, and way off
their actual historical performance. The FHE lists give a better range of
choices for how to configure these guys, and don't make you take them in the
very late Byzantine period when their existence was either fictional or
strictly ceremonial, depending on how you read the record.


-Mark Stone

[Bill Chriss]

> That sounds pretty worthless to me, certainly not worth the cost, and way
> off
> their actual historical performance. The FHE lists give a better range of
> choices for how to configure these guys, and don't make you take them in
> the
> very late Byzantine period when their existence was either fictional or
> strictly ceremonial, depending on how you read the record.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>


Mark,


I agree with all of this, including the use of the adjective 'pretty'
before the noun 'worthless.' This is why I said expensive but not
worthless, but again, since FHE has largely fixed the problem in the new
lists, not a big deal, and a disagreement largely, if not exclusively,
semantic. Just sticking up for my compatriots (or in this case their
nordic mercenaries). Live long and prosper.


-Greek