Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

[attention greg: just an example of what your posts look like... please
turn off the html! Thanks - and yes, there is real content below this
stuff...]

> > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor</b></font></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> > <td align=center width=470><a
>
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
> 080:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?
> camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM"><img
> src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/sl/sleepangel/sleep_300x250.gif"
alt=""
> width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
> src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
>
M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=858345823"></
> td></tr>
>
> > </table>
> >
> > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >

**Content starts here**

> Sean
> Ease of impetuosity is the reason why you have to go en mass and early
> before the lines are broken and 240 paces in the flanks becomes an
> issue. The lights I am not convinced about, but hey, I play Communal which
> gets
> no more than 6 E light infantry (in old lists). LC generally can not hold for
> long against infantry (LMI,MI,HI,LHI). The infantry charges or shoots, the LC
> leaves. The density of shooting won't really effect the foot. LC can be pushed
> aside (though never/rarely caught and killed).

That last parenthetical point is the key. Sure, your close foot is never
going to die to my LC (or vice versa). But nor will said foot ever
achieve anything, while the battle is won/lost elsewhere.

We're back into the 'fight the battle you want to, not what your opponent
wants to' discussion. I think that being so comprehensively out-lighted
(and not being overwhelmingly missileish, nor homogenous, so that you
don't *care* where you fight, like an Aztec or a Viking or even a HYW to
some degree) is potentially fatal for an army trying to rely on manouvre
and mobility.

> Sean
> Define beat. I never said that you hit what you can beat, you hit what
> is avaliable (except elephants). Knights are a great troop type (though
> expensive) because there is little that can beat them outright, they can move
> to hit stuff quickly, and have high points density due to their strength. My
view
> is different than Stiers (and maybe yours) in that I do not do a surgical
> strike late in the game, I prefer an early hit, assume someplace a weak troop
type
> will be exposed, a morale test will be failed, or a line cracked. At Pointcon,
HKs
> effectively hit Romans (x2) and Texicalin. Why? A bit of luck and 8 units of
> knights hitting one turn (of course Dogs of War helped as there were 40% D's,
> so morale was more likely blown) is hard for most armies to sustain. Other
> knights can be a problem, but I usually have 2+ more units, and most other
knight
> lists has some sort of required crunchy center. The most difficult armies to
beat,
> besides elephants, is LC with heavy horse (Arabs) since there is nothing
> crunchy that can't move (skrimish) away. BTW, I define an elephant army as 6
or more,
> too many to avoid and have to expect to fight during the game. But hey, most
> elephant armies have a crunchy center that can cause morale tests.

If you can't beat it, why fight it? I guess (and you allude to this
elsewhere) this may partly be a 'playing to enjoy, and maybe to win' vs
'playing to win' difference? But it your knight units are getting stuck
on things and not beating them, you're likely in trouble. Your PointCon
examples seem to me to be the case of being able to beat what you hit,
rather than otherwise.

I like the term crunchy; but I also try very hard to *avoid* exactly that:
I want my armies to have nothing that is attractive to the opponent. So
my Imperialists have SHK, LI, or HI 2HCT, Pa - that last is maybe the
thing to go for, but only with El or K, and they're never going to see it.
My Seleucids - well, do you want to fight elephants with pike, pikemen, or
peltasts in brush? ) Aztecs (although I no longer own them, sob) have
the same lack of target trooops (other than 2E of apprentices hiding
behind some knights; this is a TOG comment, not adjusted for the new
lists). And so on. IC has LC CB (if your opponent has LC), shieldless
LHI (if your opponent has any terrain troops; accepted that you may no
longer take these), and relatively poor K (if your opponent has K or El or
even LB, CB, pike..). I guess we agree that IC is not, basically, a
killer army, and I'm just trying to continue to articulate *why* that is
the case.

> Sean
> First, I developed my dismounting techniques under 7th. I find
> it a very effective tactic and makes the knights more valuable , and gives
> regulars a reason for living. At the time I developed technique,
> all but Burgundian, German, and Tuetonic Knights did not wedge, so 4
> guys with THCW was better than 3 with lance. As the rules have evolved
> (oh for the days when dismounts reordered at the end of the same approach
> moves)
> the tactics I used to survive became additions to a more powerful arsenal. 1.5
> ranks. Order at the end of same turn instead of 2 turns. The rule changes also
> prompted dropping the infantry (I think I might have gone to far having none
> though) and replacing with dismounted K. Also, few will not countercharge so
> you
> only move 1". Maybe I should point out, you dismount 80-120+ paces away from
> infantry in your turn (just out of chrage reach), order at the end, charge the
> next turn. If they skrimish or turn arround, all the better for the mounted
> support to run down. Also, a game (whether I win or loose) is not satistying
> if
> all knights have not charged, which means I can expect an average of 8 fatigue
> on each unit.

I do not know enough about / have not practiced with dismounting enough.
About the only thing I would think to do it for is to go in against pike
blocks; my flaw.

Dave S, facing my Seleucids, did exactly that - tried to face off a pike
block with dismounted K. They remounted when the El arrived and ran
away..

[And to get into the 'so, how *do* I beat El?' discussion: it's very hard.
As the K player, using almost always Imperialists, I actually go more into
Sean mode: charge everything that isn't an elephant early, hope that
wavers are failed. Use terrain to separate the battlefield into distinct
zones, then use mobility to overwhelm just one of those zones. Almost all
El armies have loose foot support: that's your target, even if you have to
sacrifice something to it to drag it out of terrain, or whatever. The
Imps don't have any significant missile fire - unlike Dave's
Sicilians/Spanish - so that's not an option for the Els. I *have* as a
desperation measure charged K in impetuously: you don't rout on contact,
and you can then break off. but that's not where you want to be unless
the battle is being won elsewhere! Essentially, I'd rather be the El
player.

And, as Seleucid, i have been: in particular, I've faced Dave S in the
NICT twice with my Seleucids against his K. The first time, he put down
(and got!) four max-sized pieces of brush across the whole battlefield;
heading for a 1-1 until my CinC died in a catastrophe in the only combat
of the game (!! me, bitter? I'm impetuous in wedge; he's nonimpetuous in
block. I'm also Reg A against his Reg C. I roll -3, he rolls +3, I die
on the spot. Ack.)

The second time, he clearly recognised that he didn't want to fight, and
put down a river along one short table edge, with three piece of swamp (?)
attached, and deployed entirely in the 6" of table past the river.
Probably heading for a 2-1 to him (my scythed chariots had to try to
charge across the river!) so I (perhaps foolishly) decided that to win the
tournament (this was the final game, and the other playoff table was not
going to get a 1-1!) I had to do something, and sent my elephants across
the river; they killed some K, but no-one on Dave's side ared, and then
his bowmen shot them up and they *did* care. Too bad.

So, it is *possible* to win with K against a top El player, but it
requires either great good fortune or the chance of not having a battle at
all. got to know your opponent, I guess.

Against anyone other than the *very* best, with K, I think a top El army
is going to just roll in 95% of cases. Sorry .

I agree, by the way, that elephant escorts are a big mistake.

> What to hit? The Burmese (some of the nastiest elephants out there) can
> buy 12 elephants but are still required to take a fair amount of foot.

And the Els are very expensive, and the foot is bad, and it's all C class.
This should actually be a reasonable win for the K, as Sean is right thsat
there is a lot of LMI to kill. I remember one game against Kelly where he
had 6x2 El units, none of which ever got to fight but all of which ran
away as LMI beside them got exploded by K. Burmese is not a good anti-K
army.

> Final note on elephants, all have crunchy support except the Dehli
> which can be all Elphant, LC, EHC/HC/MC. Much more difficult,
> but then look for the EHC usually . Not a great option, but when given
> eggs make an omulet.

Sure; but I think you missed the Seleucids here . I accept that I am
rare in running 10 Els with them; but I'm also odd for running 60-66 K in
my Imperialists . Too much of a good thing... is better.

> With the above said I am sure better K players (such as
> Dave Stiers) could give a toturial on how to beat an elephant army
> without taking much damage. I am sure premier elephant players could
> write a tretise on how to counter Dave and the above (which would
> be interesting to see what they fear, besides LMI, JLS, Ir).

I'd be extremely interested in hearing from Dave, but don't think it's
likely .

As an El player, I fear Aztecs most. The combination of JLS and missiles
is deadly, especially as they can skirmish the pikes. In a one-list
tournament, Irr LMI are nasty (generally means a bloodbath both sides); in
a two-list tourn ey, much less so, as one of the huge plusses of the
Seleucids is the ability to transform into a cav lancer army.

Not much else. Any cav or K army is generally pretty straight-forward.
Heavy/close foot armies can be slow going, but the numbers are in my
favour. Bow armies are rare. HYW and similar will die if you just walk
forwards, and Els ignore stakes .

Enough. Hope this makes sense!

E