Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/1/2003 00:07:19 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy
> that
> leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line.
> It's
> a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
> losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
> such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do
> this too,but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.
>

I would really like the original author (who I *think* is Greg R) to explain
how this works, preferably with a diagram. Every time I read it, I get the
uneasy feeling the rules are either being violated or misunderstood. I have
asked for an explanation because what is said is not expressed in Warrior rules
language, so I cannot 'see' what is being done.

As an example, if I had my own foot units slightly under 80p apart from each
other, I am not sure what the attacker thinks he can do to make me move them
closer. It is not clear to me what making that space smaller (even if it were
something 'he' could to to 'me' involuntarily) has to do with a 'flank shot'
by cav. If shot is meant literally (as in shooting), why does one need to
close spaces between infantry to be able to shoot one on the flank? Why is a
'no
charge' gap area being expressed in paces as opposed to elements? If 'flank
shot' is being used to describe a flank charge, then what has that got to do
with a gap between units of 40p (which cannot be charged through at all)? If
one 'end' of the line is exposed to a flank charge, what has that got to do
with *reducing* the gap between the units in that line? etc, etc.

An example with explanation is greatly desired. This is causing a lot of
offline mail I would like to clean up and answer. Thanks.

Jon


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

[Doug]

I don't see the mechanics.
Why does attacking someone frontally cause this gap to shrink?
Why does a _smaller_ gap between two units make flank charges possible?

>>>
One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line. It's
a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do
this too,but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.
>>>


>Doug,
>What Greg describes here is a very good tactic. It is what makes this game
>more like chess than checkers because it recognizes the ability to disguise
>your intent and using the correct troop types in order to do this. It
>demonstrates the intent to think beyond the current bound and points
>out how the
>particular troop type being discussed is better suited for this role than its
>irregular counterpart. Subtlties like this, and more importantly
>the ability to
>utilize them, are what seperate the best players from the better players.
>Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 7/1/2003 12:07:10 AM Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:


> >>>
> One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
> leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line.
> It's
> a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
> losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
> such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do
> this too,but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.
> >>>
>

I beleive what Greg was saying, and what I read in his post, here is more
easily defined in terms of elements-and that was probably his intent because
with
a 40 pace gap your cav is not fitting in the gap anyways.

By engaging a body whose shoulder is less than 2 elements away from his
supporting friend, and even <80 paces would apply, you alievate the minimum of 2
element's gap requirement to be able to charge into that gap (getting the flank
charge) in subsequent bounds. This is because one of the two shoulders of
the gap will be involved in hth and thus the one element requirement applies.
Greg wrote in 40 and 80 pace increments and he probably should have been
speaking in terms of 60 and 120 paces.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/1/2003 07:10:33 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> By engaging a body whose shoulder is less than 2 elements away from his
> supporting friend, and even <80 paces would apply, you alievate the minimum
> of 2
> element's gap requirement to be able to charge into that gap (getting the
> flank
> charge) in subsequent bounds. This is because one of the two shoulders of
> the gap will be involved in hth and thus the one element requirement
> applies.
> Greg wrote in 40 and 80 pace increments and he probably should have been
> speaking in terms of 60 and 120 paces.
>

Two elements is 80mm in 15mm, which is a little more than THREE inches, which
is therefore a little more than 120p. Both an 80p gap and a 40p gap are less
than the minimum to charge through - so no difference there.

BOTH shoulders of a gap must be in HTH from a previous bound in order for
that requirement to drop to 1 element (40mm or somewhat over 1.5 inches which is
about 60p - so anything less than 60p can't be charged through in any case by
anything, so a 40p gap as a goal is meaningless) so I agree that he MUST have
been talking 60p, not 40p. But it was confusing and the distinction is very
important.

Even if BOTH shoulders had been charged from a previous bound, a 2E cav unit
can't fit in a gap less than 61mm across (2.4 inches or 96p) as such a body is
60mm deep.

So, the practical minimum - if BOTH shoulders are in hth - is 96p, not 40 or
60 or 80. If my foot blocks are 80p or less from each other, no cav is
charging into the gaps between them, whether shoulders are in hth or no. Worse
if
somehow they are forced down to 40p apart, which 'forcing' is still unclear to
me.

Also, in a flank charge where the charger does not start entirely behind the
target's flank, ALL of the charging front rank must be behind the flank of the
target when it hits. This makes the practical charge through gap even more
restrictive and also typically prevents taking your cav to 1E deep as a method
of fitting in. Being 1E deep (and therefore at least 2E wide) AND getting
that entire 2E across front rank entirely behind the target's flank makes the
'practical minimum' gap size you can charge through more restrictive than the
simple printed rule. Certainly 40 and 80p are out of the question, but even
100-120p is tough. And, as we have seen, less than 96p if you are two deep is
IMPOSSIBLE.

So, my question to Greg remains: what is meant by 'forcing the gaps to be
smaller' and what kind of gap have you been charging cav through since it can't
be either 80p or 40p wide?

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/2/2003 17:56:27 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> We in Texas know Greg
> only speaks 15mm, so were able to translate the 40p and 80p to 1E and 2E
> )).
>

Just to close this out: 1E isn't 40p and 2E isn't 80p. I know what you were
saying, but I have to staunch the flow of offlines stuff like this creates.

J


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

[Don Coon]

> Greg wrote in 40 and 80 pace increments and he probably should have been
> speaking in terms of 60 and 120 paces.
> Chris

He SHOULD have written 1E and 2E and no paces at all. We in Texas know Greg
only speaks 15mm, so were able to translate the 40p and 80p to 1E and 2E
)).

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/2/2003 22:15:53 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> Jon, if you would re-write your explanation below using just element
> widths, maybe I could understand it better.
>

I can't. I was explaining why it couldn't have been meant in paces and need
to paces to make that explanation. Don't worry about it Doug - since you know
that 1E in 15mm is 40mm across, you already show you are ahead of these
guys...lol


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

[Doug]

I presumed the author was thinking in 15mm scale, and therefore meant
2 or 1 element wide gaps.

>Just to close this out: 1E isn't 40p and 2E isn't 80p. I know what you were
>saying, but I have to staunch the flow of offlines stuff like this creates.

And now I'm really confused, because in 15mm isn't the base width 40mm???

Jon, if you would re-write your explanation below using just element
widths, maybe I could understand it better.


>In a message dated 7/1/2003 07:10:33 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
>writes:
>
>> By engaging a body whose shoulder is less than 2 elements away from his
>> supporting friend, and even <80 paces would apply, you alievate the minimum
>> of 2
>> element's gap requirement to be able to charge into that gap (getting the
>> flank
>> charge) in subsequent bounds. This is because one of the two shoulders of
>> the gap will be involved in hth and thus the one element requirement
>> applies.
>> Greg wrote in 40 and 80 pace increments and he probably should have been
>> speaking in terms of 60 and 120 paces.
>>
>
>Two elements is 80mm in 15mm, which is a little more than THREE inches, which
>is therefore a little more than 120p. Both an 80p gap and a 40p gap are less
>than the minimum to charge through - so no difference there.
>
>BOTH shoulders of a gap must be in HTH from a previous bound in order for
>that requirement to drop to 1 element (40mm or somewhat over 1.5
>inches which is
>about 60p - so anything less than 60p can't be charged through in any case by
>anything, so a 40p gap as a goal is meaningless) so I agree that he MUST have
>been talking 60p, not 40p. But it was confusing and the distinction is very
>important.
>
>Even if BOTH shoulders had been charged from a previous bound, a 2E cav unit
>can't fit in a gap less than 61mm across (2.4 inches or 96p) as such a body is
>60mm deep.
>
>So, the practical minimum - if BOTH shoulders are in hth - is 96p, not 40 or
>60 or 80. If my foot blocks are 80p or less from each other, no cav is
>charging into the gaps between them, whether shoulders are in hth or
>no. Worse if
>somehow they are forced down to 40p apart, which 'forcing' is still unclear to
>me.
>
>Also, in a flank charge where the charger does not start entirely behind the
>target's flank, ALL of the charging front rank must be behind the flank of the
>target when it hits. This makes the practical charge through gap even more
>restrictive and also typically prevents taking your cav to 1E deep as a method
>of fitting in. Being 1E deep (and therefore at least 2E wide) AND getting
>that entire 2E across front rank entirely behind the target's flank makes the
>'practical minimum' gap size you can charge through more restrictive than the
>simple printed rule. Certainly 40 and 80p are out of the question, but even
>100-120p is tough. And, as we have seen, less than 96p if you are two deep is
>IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>So, my question to Greg remains: what is meant by 'forcing the gaps to be
>smaller' and what kind of gap have you been charging cav through
>since it can't
>be either 80p or 40p wide?
>
>Jon
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/