Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/18/2004 07:26:20 Central Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
What you say about tournament play is sadly very true, but Jon I beg
to point out that terrain has always played a MAJOR role in ancient
combat. Even the most cursory reading of Caesar would reveal just
how important uphill is, and who could discount the effect terrain
had at Crecy? No, terrain does play a role in every major ancient
battle I can name; in fact I would go so far as to say the terrain
defined the combat.>>

And you would find me in complete agreement. I didn't at all say that
terrain did not play a major role - I said that ancient battles were fought on
mostly open fields - meaning mostly free in the center from vegetative terrain.
There are terrain features and combinations allowable under 14.3 that would
completely screw with Mark's plan - they just aren't huge woods in the center.
Players make way too infrequent use, for example, of the raised terrain
features that are not hills..... :)

People at "high levels" of play use what I consider cruch troops to
overcome their own tactical deficiencies. Namely, SHK and regular
loose order bow armed combinations are the easiest and safest troops
to use in Warrior. >>

This is silly, Boyd. Anyone with more than a day in Warrior or ancients
gaming in general would know that we are simply seeing another cycle play out
and
that good players win with whatever tools suit their style, not with 'crutch'
troops. I'll try not to take your poorly veiled insult personally...lol SHK
and loose order bow are not at all easy and safe either - they are some of the
riskiest troops to employ. You have to master both timing and
counters/retirements. I would never recommend them to a new player for exactly
that reason.
Easy and safe is pike/elephant or roman - forgiving troops who do what you
want and aren't going to be routed on contact, even by SHK, thus allowing more
numerous reserves to finish off the supposed crutch troops.


The English have massive regular loose bowmen who are also capable of
HTH with 2HCW and/or sheild.>>
As a player who uses them, the shield does not help on the second crucial
bound - it is there for approach shooting only. The 2HCW does not generate
enough casualties against any likely opponent to do what you really need to -
theoretically they will do enough to keep you from losing to certain troop
types,
but in reality, as was amply demonstrated this past weekend, they are more
likely to make you think you can hang in or win a fight you should not be
fighting. I'm dropping most of mine.
If they do not fail a waver test, these
units are going to win any combat against mounted except perhaps
super heavies. >>
??? One, they will fail that waver 50% of the time. Two, mounted shouldn't
be approaching these guys alone - there will be a troop with the mounted that
make the LB need to skirmish, and thus not stand. Three, elephants and
lancers all kill these guys.
True, if a 2E unit of non-K lancers (nominally 300 guys) charges alone into
4E (nominally 800) of longbowmen who are not disordered, or tired and do not
fail their waver, the LB will likely win. I am comfortable with that. If the
LB are steady and fresh, 600 lancers will do it and I am comfortable with that
too.
The only infantry they fear are irregular LHI with
2HCT or something similar that can get them moving backwards and
cancel their own charge. No nasty killer infantry can otherwise
catch or hurt them enough to worry about.>>
Actually, nearly any loose order foot and any close (if they are in a place
where they can't counter or skirmish) will wax them. I'd put examples here,
but it is easier to find a troop they do well against than to list the 1000's
that would kill regular longbowmen. They fear LTS, P, romans, etc. 8 at a 5 is
32, but any real infantry that hits this LB face on is fighting 12-16 figures
of at least a 4 and if that does not kill them, on the second bound they die.
SHK don't really care about anything
shooting with less than 20 figures, and they only fear elephants or
getting hit in the flank standing still. >>
That's simply not true. 8 figs of B are a 1 vs SHK - thats 2FP - meaning
they have to charge and hit tired. They are then done. SHK on SHK can turn
into
a rout on contact with only a +1/-2 split. Pike make them stand still and
then destroy them second bound. The list goes on...

Russ have some of the most powerful infantry in the game with double
armed close order foot that no mounted would want to hit frontally. >>
funny, I thought the SHK feared nothing but elephants...lol

They can in large units ignore shooting virtually, and can go toe to
toe with any infantry out there especially if able to get an
impetouos charge off. The chance of getting a charge off is almost
nil, however, and this is exactly why few run this army. Close order
foot, regardless of quality, will not do combat on their own terms. >>
Try this - forced march them. In four hours you can shove that skirmisher
right to the table edge. Put some cav in the gaps and charge those skirmishers
and hold them and them hit with the foot. How did those damned Seleucids and
Late Romans ever win a tourney? How did Chris Damour do it with Patrician
Roman? More support to my argument that victory is far more player based than
troop based.

I happen to like Medieval Spanish. I like studying them, I like painting
them and I like playing them. So there...lol

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/18/2004 10:28:51 Central Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
I'm sorry you saw my commentary as a vieled insult. It was not. I
see SHK/reg LMI B as a very tough combination to beat. I never
mentioned LB, but as my example was HYWE perhaps you infered this as
a general dig. Sorry, it wasn't. >>

No worries, Boyd. It just came across funny...
There are other armies more suited
to my example, but since I've been gaming against Ambrose I'm
currently more familiar with HYWE. It certainly has some weaknesses
as do all armies. However, most armies you never see at "high level"
tournaments have much larger weaknesses.>>

I agree. But in my opinion those weaknesses are usually a lack of combined
arms. In an open tourney you could theoretically face just about anything and
many armies are a little one dimensional to give their owner the right
tactical options in all those varied situations. This is one reason why I
advocate
more themes and more varied formats.


I think it fair to say, as you did partly, that all K armies are
tough to run for beginners. This is, however, mainly because of the
delight beginners have in launcing charges against unprepared enemies.>>

Certainly one of the dangers!


I do not wish to get into the "you do this I do that" discussion on
your example of meeting the bowmen with other foot, but I will say
that in straight up fight with 2HCW/Sh armed archers most irregular C
LMI JLS/sh types will not win unless they get the archers moving
backwards on the first turn.>>

No argument.

I do not think my opinion is "silly" btw. If you look at the high
level gamers at tournaments you see El or SHK or Hch with LMI or LHI
B or LB. That is the game. Sure there are other types of troops
such as close order spearmen or pikemen in these armies, but they are
not the army. The cycle is not. What cycles is Elephant or Knight,
but archers are always there. >>

I disagree, but when I say cycle, I am including 7th experiences as well.
Warrior hasn't been around long enough to turn through about more than one
cycle.
Even people running vikings get tons
of archers, yet archery was not historically a major part of viking
warfare. You'll never see things like Early German in the win cycle,
nor will you see things like Mongol.>>

Strange.... I have won with both.... ;)

Ajax Balls-on


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

What you say about tournament play is sadly very true, but Jon I beg
to point out that terrain has always played a MAJOR role in ancient
combat. Even the most cursory reading of Caesar would reveal just
how important uphill is, and who could discount the effect terrain
had at Crecy? No, terrain does play a role in every major ancient
battle I can name; in fact I would go so far as to say the terrain
defined the combat. In Warrior this is also true to some extent.
While you may like to think that at some "high level" of play terrain
is a minor issue, I'm sure this may be more due to the fact that most
people do not use much terrain.

I remained out of this shooting talk mainly as I didn't feel my
personal opinion was going to benefit new guys, but now I will
express it since you feel terrain is of passing import.

People at "high levels" of play use what I consider cruch troops to
overcome their own tactical deficiencies. Namely, SHK and regular
loose order bow armed combinations are the easiest and safest troops
to use in Warrior. The reason they are so popular is that they have
fewer design weaknesses, and reasonably someone wanting to win would
exploit this fact. And the certainly do so. High risk armies can do
well, but they have brittle weaknesses that everyone knows and will
exploit.

Even a fairly new player can look at two given armies and recognize
what I'm talking about. Let us look now at HYW English and Russ.
These are two armies that just finished competing at CW.

The English have massive regular loose bowmen who are also capable of
HTH with 2HCW and/or sheild. If they do not fail a waver test, these
units are going to win any combat against mounted except perhaps
super heavies. The only infantry they fear are irregular LHI with
2HCT or something similar that can get them moving backwards and
cancel their own charge. No nasty killer infantry can otherwise
catch or hurt them enough to worry about. Very safe infantry that
can also punish lesser troops with a hail of arrows. Skirmishing,
shooting, extended 120p movement rates--very safe infantry. They
also have SHK themselves. SHK don't really care about anything
shooting with less than 20 figures, and they only fear elephants or
getting hit in the flank standing still. Otherwise, these guys are
more likely to tire themselves than anything the enemy will do given
a good players ability to keep them from unnecessary harm. No other
troop type will rout an enemy on contact more than SHK. I will leave
off the Brigands, as they are simply there to clean up the mess left
by the archers and keep all those dangerous infantry types off the
bowmen.

Russ have some of the most powerful infantry in the game with double
armed close order foot that no mounted would want to hit frontally.
They can in large units ignore shooting virtually, and can go toe to
toe with any infantry out there especially if able to get an
impetouos charge off. The chance of getting a charge off is almost
nil, however, and this is exactly why few run this army. Close order
foot, regardless of quality, will not do combat on their own terms.
Against a regular loose order shooting army it doesn't stand a chance
of ever making contact, and will eventually be forced to waver test
as a result. Other Viking types can be added, but as irregular loose
order foot and "C" moral, these guys want a different terrain than
the Russ spearmen, so cooperation in the face of an enemy with SHK is
problematic; the SHK will seek out the vulnerable loose order vikings
and slay them quickly. If the Bulgars or other steppe nomad crap
mounted are used, there may be a chance to screen and punch an enemy
on one flank, but these troops are not only under an ally but very
brittle and difficult to run. As anyone knows, irregular LC are at a
distinct dissadvantage when facing any infantry with missiles
including LI. I will take a 6E LI B unit over a 6E LC B unit in a
striaght up shooting match any day, as the factors dictate the LC
will be shot back or waver. HC as the Bulgars can bring are great at
punching anything short of SHK and SHC, but they cannot withstand
even modest amounts of archery and have virtually no staying power
once contact is made. Against SHK a unit of HC in a straight up
fight is just another routing unit. Therefore to use irregular HC as
a punch, the player has to avoid virtually everything on the field
short of JLS armed LI, "C" moral non-bow armed LMI, other HC or LC.

One army has a distinct advantage from the start. Given equal
abilities, any level player would choose the English since the odds
of winning are increased considerably. Only odd ducks bring armies
that contain obviously exploitable weaknesses. I applaud these
people, since they have guts, for it is in my opinion better to come
in last with a real vulnerable army like hoplite than to come in
first with the same old sure thing type army. And as Scott has
already said, and I will second, I encourage and would continue to
encourage people to run armies they like.

Wanax



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/17/2004 3:43:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > My thoughts on terrain are less passive waiting than using it as
a
> > channeling device. Still there is something to be said for
> > cover
> > when facing missiles >>
>
> At the higher levels of play, terrain is easier to 'defeat'
than 'control'. This is deliberate, as terrain should play a minor,
if important, role in any ancient/medieval simulation.
> A comp player will know that he can reliably get the center clear
and may face one flank with rough terrain and will have planned
accordingly. There will therefore be 3/4 of the table that the other
player cannot hide in and must have some other plan for.
>
> J

Jon,
I'm sorry you saw my commentary as a vieled insult. It was not. I
see SHK/reg LMI B as a very tough combination to beat. I never
mentioned LB, but as my example was HYWE perhaps you infered this as
a general dig. Sorry, it wasn't. There are other armies more suited
to my example, but since I've been gaming against Ambrose I'm
currently more familiar with HYWE. It certainly has some weaknesses
as do all armies. However, most armies you never see at "high level"
tournaments have much larger weaknesses.

I think it fair to say, as you did partly, that all K armies are
tough to run for beginners. This is, however, mainly because of the
delight beginners have in launcing charges against unprepared enemies.

I do not wish to get into the "you do this I do that" discussion on
your example of meeting the bowmen with other foot, but I will say
that in straight up fight with 2HCW/Sh armed archers most irregular C
LMI JLS/sh types will not win unless they get the archers moving
backwards on the first turn. The irregs will get tired first, take
twice the damage and if the english are able to countercharge they
will more than likely recoil the irregs on the first contact. Of
course outside of the vaccum the SHK charge the irreg LMI and cancel
their charge anyway, force a waver test, and sweep them from the
field.

I do not think my opinion is "silly" btw. If you look at the high
level gamers at tournaments you see El or SHK or Hch with LMI or LHI
B or LB. That is the game. Sure there are other types of troops
such as close order spearmen or pikemen in these armies, but they are
not the army. The cycle is not. What cycles is Elephant or Knight,
but archers are always there. Even people running vikings get tons
of archers, yet archery was not historically a major part of viking
warfare. You'll never see things like Early German in the win cycle,
nor will you see things like Mongol. It is just a fact; not good or
bad.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/18/2004 07:26:20 Central Standard Time,
> spocksleftball@y... writes:
> What you say about tournament play is sadly very true, but Jon I
beg
> to point out that terrain has always played a MAJOR role in ancient
> combat. Even the most cursory reading of Caesar would reveal just
> how important uphill is, and who could discount the effect terrain
> had at Crecy? No, terrain does play a role in every major ancient
> battle I can name; in fact I would go so far as to say the terrain
> defined the combat.>>
>
> And you would find me in complete agreement. I didn't at all say
that
> terrain did not play a major role - I said that ancient battles
were fought on
> mostly open fields - meaning mostly free in the center from
vegetative terrain.
> There are terrain features and combinations allowable under 14.3
that would
> completely screw with Mark's plan - they just aren't huge woods in
the center.
> Players make way too infrequent use, for example, of the raised
terrain
> features that are not hills.....
>
> People at "high levels" of play use what I consider cruch troops to
> overcome their own tactical deficiencies. Namely, SHK and regular
> loose order bow armed combinations are the easiest and safest
troops
> to use in Warrior. >>
>
> This is silly, Boyd. Anyone with more than a day in Warrior or
ancients
> gaming in general would know that we are simply seeing another
cycle play out and
> that good players win with whatever tools suit their style, not
with 'crutch'
> troops. I'll try not to take your poorly veiled insult
personally...lol SHK
> and loose order bow are not at all easy and safe either - they are
some of the
> riskiest troops to employ. You have to master both timing and
> counters/retirements. I would never recommend them to a new player
for exactly that reason.
> Easy and safe is pike/elephant or roman - forgiving troops who do
what you
> want and aren't going to be routed on contact, even by SHK, thus
allowing more
> numerous reserves to finish off the supposed crutch troops.
>
>
> The English have massive regular loose bowmen who are also capable
of
> HTH with 2HCW and/or sheild.>>
> As a player who uses them, the shield does not help on the second
crucial
> bound - it is there for approach shooting only. The 2HCW does not
generate
> enough casualties against any likely opponent to do what you really
need to -
> theoretically they will do enough to keep you from losing to
certain troop types,
> but in reality, as was amply demonstrated this past weekend, they
are more
> likely to make you think you can hang in or win a fight you should
not be
> fighting. I'm dropping most of mine.
> If they do not fail a waver test, these
> units are going to win any combat against mounted except perhaps
> super heavies. >>
> ??? One, they will fail that waver 50% of the time. Two, mounted
shouldn't
> be approaching these guys alone - there will be a troop with the
mounted that
> make the LB need to skirmish, and thus not stand. Three, elephants
and
> lancers all kill these guys.
> True, if a 2E unit of non-K lancers (nominally 300 guys) charges
alone into
> 4E (nominally 800) of longbowmen who are not disordered, or tired
and do not
> fail their waver, the LB will likely win. I am comfortable with
that. If the
> LB are steady and fresh, 600 lancers will do it and I am
comfortable with that
> too.
> The only infantry they fear are irregular LHI with
> 2HCT or something similar that can get them moving backwards and
> cancel their own charge. No nasty killer infantry can otherwise
> catch or hurt them enough to worry about.>>
> Actually, nearly any loose order foot and any close (if they are in
a place
> where they can't counter or skirmish) will wax them. I'd put
examples here,
> but it is easier to find a troop they do well against than to list
the 1000's
> that would kill regular longbowmen. They fear LTS, P, romans,
etc. 8 at a 5 is
> 32, but any real infantry that hits this LB face on is fighting 12-
16 figures
> of at least a 4 and if that does not kill them, on the second bound
they die.
> SHK don't really care about anything
> shooting with less than 20 figures, and they only fear elephants or
> getting hit in the flank standing still. >>
> That's simply not true. 8 figs of B are a 1 vs SHK - thats 2FP -
meaning
> they have to charge and hit tired. They are then done. SHK on SHK
can turn into
> a rout on contact with only a +1/-2 split. Pike make them stand
still and
> then destroy them second bound. The list goes on...
>
> Russ have some of the most powerful infantry in the game with
double
> armed close order foot that no mounted would want to hit frontally.
>>
> funny, I thought the SHK feared nothing but elephants...lol
>
> They can in large units ignore shooting virtually, and can go toe
to
> toe with any infantry out there especially if able to get an
> impetouos charge off. The chance of getting a charge off is almost
> nil, however, and this is exactly why few run this army. Close
order
> foot, regardless of quality, will not do combat on their own
terms. >>
> Try this - forced march them. In four hours you can shove that
skirmisher
> right to the table edge. Put some cav in the gaps and charge those
skirmishers
> and hold them and them hit with the foot. How did those damned
Seleucids and
> Late Romans ever win a tourney? How did Chris Damour do it with
Patrician
> Roman? More support to my argument that victory is far more player
based than
> troop based.
>
> I happen to like Medieval Spanish. I like studying them, I like
painting
> them and I like playing them. So there...lol
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]