Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/10/00 11:47:25 Central Daylight Time,
Fish@... writes:

<< > Jon
> Paul Szuscikiewicz wrote an excellent response to your comment (though he
> didn't know it when he wrote it...)and all I can add is I am in total
> agreement with his comments and position. But as I and others haven't had
much
> impact on your opinion for years, I don't/didn't expect much change.

Jamie >>

Could it be possible, Jamie, that you have not had much impact on my opinion
because I do not agree with your either your interpretation of how light
infantry fought or the way you intrepret Warrior mechanics representing that
fighting? Or is it still the only possibility that I am somehow too
woodenheaded to understand the revelations the great one keeps trying to
bestow on me?

(Sigh.) Since you seem to want this so badly, here goes (comments snipped
from Paul S.):

<<My studies have led me to make the follow conclusions about light infantry
in the core zone of Ancients (Europe and the Middle East):
1) They fight other light infantry while deployment of the strike forces
takes place behind them.>>

Our studies have led us to the conclusion that the reason light infantry
fought other light infantry was to beat them. The reason they wanted to
drive off the enemy light infantry was to be able to slow and harass the
enemy's main force. The fight between opposing light infantry WAS NOT an
ends unto itself, it had a purpose, and that purpose went beyond simply
driving off the enemy LI.
Therefore, the LI that wins that LI v. LI fight must be able to do SOMETHING
(slow down, shoot missiles at, etc.) to the main body of the enemy. Warrior
represents this. Could LI stand up to close order foot? No. I fought as
hard as anyone for the recall rule in 7.6 for just that reason. Now they can
swirl around in front of heavy foot all day, but once the heavy foot presses
them, they flee.
In addition, and this has a significant role in our thinking, the 50%
demoralization rule will (and has in playtesting) make it extremely risky to
use lots of LI and/or take LI wavers, which severely limits the player's
ability to take the waver instead of standing.
He still has that opportunity, however, because it is a significant FHE
philosophy that rules should penalize risky behavior, but not explicitly
prohibit it. For example, one reason I have always liked WRG/Warrior over
other sets of rules is the support rule. Where other games make me keep my
units x distance apart, Warrior penalizes lack of support. This allows the
player-general more options and rewards the judicial use of boldness. I
picture Alexander exhorting some Agrianians with one of his speeches to hold
off the Persian line as long as possible.

This leaves the LI-Cav interaction. Much of my reading shows
non-shield-to-shield foot working on the flanks of an army to support
friendly cavalry. We have two ways of representing non-shield-to-shield
foot: loose order and open order. But how loose is loose and how open is
open? How much documentary evidence is there to support the notion that we
know exactly how far apart peltasts and yung-kan and agrianians and chariot
runners operated? Indeed, our army lists often give the player the choice of
how to interpret these "formations." (something we are going to do more of,
by the way) But, in any case, we often see things we call LI and LMI/LHI
operating on the wings to force unpleasant choices on enemy cavalry not so
supported. My conclusions from things like German skirmishers supporting
their heavy cavalry is that ancient generals often deliberately used such
troops in proximity to enemy cavalry to pose them tactical dilemmas. This is
not the same as:

<< 2) They get out of the central battle zone as soon as their strike
force is ready to advance.
3) They then go and hide somewhere in the flank or rear zones looking
for an opportunity to loot the dead or the enemy camp.>>

HOWEVER, open tournament-style games lead to some pretty bizarre
combinations, and Agrianians will be called upon in Warrior to fight on the
same battlefield with enemy SHK arriving magically from their distant future.
We have to interpolate such fights as there is no historical evidence upon
which to directly draw. We also have no intention of writing any rules
SPECIFICALLY addressing particular ahistorical matchups. We will seek a
middle ground based on what evidence we have of SIMILAR engagements.
So, while we have evidence of open/loose foot operating on the flanks of an
army and in proximity to enemy cavalry, it must be at least possible (however
risky) for that to happen. It may be that the disparity between mounted
troops on armored horses and unarmored skirmishers was so great that not a
single shred of evidence will support LI standing near them. We are looking
at this.

What we are not looking at is having LI fight LI only and then disappear to
the rear of the army to await the result of the battle. Not because that is
what happened, Fish has explained it to us and we are not smart enough to
understand what he is saying; but because our research into the ancient and
medieval period leads us to a different conclusion.

If someone can show us that in a given bounded historical period/geographic
region (say feudal Ireland?) LI (or any other troop type) acted a certain way
and ONLY a certain way when opposed by certain foes, we'll use that material
to design theme rules for tournaments and scenarios in that period/region.

Remember one key thing that also drives our actions. Warrior is a rules set.
Playing ahistorical enemies in an open tourney is a player choice. We
intend to take more action than WRG did to support local 'basement' gamers
with scenario rules to help them refine Warrior into a more exact replication
of specific periods. For open tourneys welcoming players from around the
world with armies spanning 4400 years of history, the tourney director needs
a standard to work from. We are providing that standard out of the best
interpretation of the historical evidence we have ALONG with the best
interpolation of ahistorical interactions we can make. If you want to make
LI in your Warrior games more Tactica-like, we have no problem with that at
all.

And Jamie, the bottom line for you and me is:
I heard you, I understood you, and I think you are wrong.
I'll STILL listen, but only to period-spanning historical examples, not to
further accusations that I don't get what you said. I am forced to ignore
any such in order to get these rules written. Sorry if it seems rude.

Jon