Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

This is because, IMO, the pod theory works well only with variable
speeds of movment between the coordinated elements with at least 1
pod member having a range over 80p. When you attempt the pod support
with all hoplites, for example, they tend to need to turn at some
point which for close order makes them out of range more often than
not and thus unsupportive offensively.

the pod is the natural progression from tandum fighting pairs, and it
could be argued that a pod is nothing more than coordinated tandum
fighting pairs.

The single best known tandum combination is using 2E Reg LC with 4 or
6E Irg LC, to fight enemy LC, where the reg LC draw fire and charges
while the irreg cancel enemy charges by impetuous charge reletively
fresh as the reg LC evade to safety. Now to create a pod effect, you
include one or two 2E HC L type units. Now the reg LC pin and
displace enemy missile fire, but the HC and LC move in coordination
to charge a "path" rather than a specific target unit (often
involving a wheel). with a follow on second HC unit to act either
charge what the first units stuck to or to keep enemy counterchargers
off of your stuck units flank. The irreg LC are now the missile
screen for the HC, and the reg LC will be able to more forward in the
3rd bound to act as a support follow on and keep LI away. This could
actually be broken down as 2 tandum fighting pairs in echelon. The
first echelon is the LC and the second is the HC. Even though one HC
charged with the LC to "sweep" and area, it is the combat
coordination, not the charge coordination that determines pairs IMO.

Applying the Pod analogy to my First Crusader fighting style.
Typically one pod consist of 2x2E RgC LC J/B/sh with 2x2E IrgA/B HK
L/sh and 1x6E IrgD LI B/sh B. This is my usual strong flank sweeping
attack at 1200points. As a pod the coordination is such that the LI
pin the enemy where I want to contest, then the LC move up together
to one side and try to get the enemy line to kink (so that if two
units evade side by side directly away from the charge they will
cause an illegal interpenetration and have to waver and halt. I then
manuver the HK close enough with minimum missile exposre to charge
impetuously with 1 unit on a path to cover two enemy units on either
side of the kink. The LC take it on the chin from missiles, the HK
charge at an angle to the kink to hit whichever unit had to halt.
The second HK unit move up in the second bound to counter any enemy
countercharging units and act as a follow on second wave of impetuous
charge to sweep the enemy unit already contacted. In all of this the
initial anchor and pivot point was the outside edge of the LI unit.
This, again, is just an example, so we are all clear I'm not assuming
to answer all possible variations on this theme.

The Pod theory is valid, I just think it is the natural extension of
the standard tandum fighting pairs everyone learns to adopt early on.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> I've been trying the "pod" idea with my Marian Romans,
> using one 4E Legions backed up by a 2E Legion, a unit
> of Scutarii or Thracians and a unit of Armenian EHC.
>
> Against most larger, well larger than 4E) opponents,
> The Legions can't win a fight straight up 9 times out
> of 10 on even dice, their success (ecspecially against
> some opponents) comes in the 2nd bound of combat, when
> the smaller legion, EHC or Thracians (or Scutarii, can
> lend their weight to the battle.
>
> It works well in theory when I'm practicing on the
> table top, in last weekend tournament it did very well
> in the one game I won big. The other games nI beleive
> I got the matchups I wanted but the dice were less
> than desirable. What I need to get better at is
> having a plan for when something like that goes wrong.
>
>
>
> --- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> I think that maybe a better way to handle these
> discussions is to talk in general terms about what
> types of pairs of troops (or 'pods' like Scott calls
> them) work together well to cover each other's
> weaknesses rather than enter the cycle...
>
> >I use that term because oftentimes, "pairs" isn't
> what is called for. My favorite example is the usage
> of Mongol cav. I need a "pod" consisting of 6E unit
> of LC, 2E unit of HC and possibly a 4E unit of HC or
> perhaps two 2E units of LC, etc. Obviously the
> composition of such a pod depends on what you're
> trying to do with the combined grouping. As a playing
> style, this is a *bitch* for me to master. The 6E LC
> is the shooting platform, the 2E LC are the pin units,
> the HC are either closers or, in the case of the 4E
> unit, another shooting platform. Getting these
> components to work correctly without causing a horsey
> traffic jam is the key. And this pod is really
> designed to do nothing more than totally blow away
> every opposing HC and below-to-LI support/screen unit.
>
> >But that's just one pod. I've been playing Dark Age
> lists a bit lately because of my mostly monthly games
> with Darrell (he has primarily Dark Age armies in
> 25mm) and find the same type of things apply. You
> might have two pods per command, etc. I try to get
> them to function as autonomously as possible although
> another coordination key is to get the pods to be in a
> position to support someone to either side, not
> exactly something that screams as doable in a Dark Age
> list:) For example, If I'm running Anglo-Danish,
> I might have a pod of 3 units, one Fyrd of some ilk,
> one HC unit and then one something else. Spread those
> out across the table and you have some options,
> assuming you're not overmatched army wise from the
> gitgo but in my monthly games, we try to pair things
> historically.
>
> scott
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> 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.

[scott holder]

The Pod theory is valid, I just think it is the natural extension of
the standard tandum fighting pairs everyone learns to adopt early on.

>It certainly isn't something I ever developed, better cav-army players in
Northern VA (most alumni of my basement) figured it out long before I did. I
bring this up because it's an interesting way to think about playing the game
and creating army lists with that in mind. It's another step *somewhere* (up,
down, sideways, beats me) in mastering the system.

scott