Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/2/2005 18:09:16 Central Standard Time,
pcelella@... writes:

Hope I'm not offending anyone, but I would prefer to read more of this
kind of information rather than disagreements about TOG, or the
sematics of whether something has or has not 'changed.'>>


Amen to that! Thanks, Peter.








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

As one of the newbies here, I keep seeing references to splitting
fire. Would anyone care to give a quick run down of how this works?

Is it just attempting to line up your missile troops in such a manner
that an enemy missile unit is forced to split fire between two or more
units? Are there any other nuances to this? Any recommendations about
going about it in different circumstances?

Hope I'm not offending anyone, but I would prefer to read more of this
kind of information rather than disagreements about TOG, or the
sematics of whether something has or has not 'changed.'

Peter

[Ewan McNay]

Thanks, Pete.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Peter Celella wrote:
> As one of the newbies here, I keep seeing references to splitting
> fire. Would anyone care to give a quick run down of how this works?

It's most often used in discussion of shooting priorities. If you can
place a body capable of shooting in front of a given enemy element, it
becomes the highest shooting priority even if not closest. So, for
instance, once again using the Sassanids: if my elephants are 80p in front
of one element of an enemy bow unit, that unit would be able to fire two
elements' frontage (i.e. 4E in two ranks) at me. However, if the second,
'overlap' element has a unit of my close order foot with rear rank B in
front of it, even if that unit is 240p away and even if it chooses not to
actually fire, that foot becomes a higher target priority for the facing
element and hence 'splits' the fire from the bow unit between the two
targets.

> Is it just attempting to line up your missile troops in such a manner
> that an enemy missile unit is forced to split fire between two or more
> units? Are there any other nuances to this? Any recommendations about
> going about it in different circumstances?

See above: yes, it's about lining up elements, but also about manipulating
shooting priorities. Usually, you want to force the enemy to shoot at
larger/less vulnerable units, of course. For instance, I have a unit of
LI S, Sh; in skirmish, they are shot by enemy bowmen at factor -1, which
is much better for me in most cases than allowing those bowmen to shoot at
other targets. That's their major role in the army: absorbing missile
fire. Because they are missile troops, hence can be 'shooters to front,'
they are good at this.

Thank you, Ewan

That's pretty much how I thought it worked in general. Wanted to make
sure I wasn't missing something. Now, I have to figure out the
mechanics of how to make it work in practice.

I have a lot of trouble with opponents that have a large block (say 8
to 12 elements) of LMI missile troops (Reg or Irr). Is splitting fire
the best way to deal with these? Is it better to go where these units
are not? What if you need to clear such an unit out? Is there a
reasonable way to attack it?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> Thanks, Pete.
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Peter Celella wrote:
> > As one of the newbies here, I keep seeing references to splitting
> > fire. Would anyone care to give a quick run down of how this
works?
>
> It's most often used in discussion of shooting priorities. If you
can
> place a body capable of shooting in front of a given enemy element,
it
> becomes the highest shooting priority even if not closest. So, for
> instance, once again using the Sassanids: if my elephants are 80p in
front
> of one element of an enemy bow unit, that unit would be able to
fire two
> elements' frontage (i.e. 4E in two ranks) at me. However, if the
second,
> 'overlap' element has a unit of my close order foot with rear rank
B in
> front of it, even if that unit is 240p away and even if it chooses
not to
> actually fire, that foot becomes a higher target priority for the
facing
> element and hence 'splits' the fire from the bow unit between the
two
> targets.
>
> > Is it just attempting to line up your missile troops in such a
manner
> > that an enemy missile unit is forced to split fire between two or
more
> > units? Are there any other nuances to this? Any recommendations
about
> > going about it in different circumstances?
>
> See above: yes, it's about lining up elements, but also about
manipulating
> shooting priorities. Usually, you want to force the enemy to shoot
at
> larger/less vulnerable units, of course. For instance, I have a
unit of
> LI S, Sh; in skirmish, they are shot by enemy bowmen at factor -1,
which
> is much better for me in most cases than allowing those bowmen to
shoot at
> other targets. That's their major role in the army: absorbing
missile
> fire. Because they are missile troops, hence can be 'shooters to
front,'
> they are good at this.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
> I have a lot of trouble with opponents that have a large block
(say 8
> to 12 elements) of LMI missile troops (Reg or Irr). Is splitting
fire
> the best way to deal with these? Is it better to go where these
units
> are not? What if you need to clear such an unit out? Is there a
> reasonable way to attack it?

Well... there are many ways to skin the cat of course, and lots of
folks who could explain this better than me, but I would say the
hard part of attacking such a unit is (a) support shooting knocks
you down and (b) you need to repeatedly disorder (1 CPF and double
or just 3 CPF) or else out-and-out break (3 CPF and double) the unit
to beat it.

One trick to handle support shooting is to spread your attack over
two or more bounds. First bound you send in a unit whose jub is just
to stick to the enemy, maybe they can even charge disordered thru a
LI screen, or use the fire splitting mechanism described above, to
better enable them to do this. This means no enemy support shot in
subsequent bounds so your better attackers, possibly more vulnerable
to support shooting, can go in without getting shot down.

The fact the unit is LMI means, if you can get it in the open and
remove the shooting threat, you can use mounted troops to repeatedly
force waver test bound after bound. Not only that, simply winning
the combat by doing 1 CPF and more means your mounted recoil them
disordered - so you get a "free" impetuous bonus, and also repeated
disorders cause more waver tests.

Depending on what the unit you are having trouble with is, and what
exactly is in your army, changes all the details of this but you
might think about an approach like this - especially against a large
unit that has a large frontage available to hit.

Just the 2 cents of a marginal player, bit some ideas.

>
> One trick to handle support shooting is to spread your attack over
> two or more bounds. First bound you send in a unit whose jub is just
> to stick to the enemy, maybe they can even charge disordered thru a
> LI screen, or use the fire splitting mechanism described above, to
> better enable them to do this. This means no enemy support shot in
> subsequent bounds so your better attackers, possibly more vulnerable
> to support shooting, can go in without getting shot down.
>

But if the unit has 2 or more ranks, can't the elements not in contact
shoot in subsequent rounds regardless?

> The fact the unit is LMI means, if you can get it in the open and
> remove the shooting threat, you can use mounted troops to repeatedly
> force waver test bound after bound. Not only that, simply winning
> the combat by doing 1 CPF and more means your mounted recoil them
> disordered - so you get a "free" impetuous bonus, and also repeated
> disorders cause more waver tests.
>

My best attack cavalry is usually HC lancers, so even if I get to
force the waver, the unit is beat up pretty bad after, having mounted
charged and taken the support shooting. If the enemy hasn't recoiled,
I'm in even worse shape. I can't use my LC to charge LMI unless I
start behind his flank.

> Depending on what the unit you are having trouble with is, and what
> exactly is in your army, changes all the details of this but you
> might think about an approach like this - especially against a large
> unit that has a large frontage available to hit.
>
> Just the 2 cents of a marginal player, bit some ideas.

Thanks for the tips. I'll see if I can't try some out.

Peter

[Todd Schneider]

Peter,

I try and use split fire a lot, as my army is almost
all Bow Armed troops, and splitting fire is the best
way to make them effective.

Say you have three Units. Hopefully this will format
right.

AAAA

BBBB CCCC

All are bow Armed troops.
Under the shooting target priorities, the left end
element in A Has to shoot at B, and the Right end
element of A has to shoot at C.
If all Units were LMI, and all declared they were
shooting, A would shoot B and C at 8@5 (asuming
overlap here), and in return would be shot at 12@5 and
8@5 (20@5) from B and C.

Split fire is an art form/tactic that takes a lot of
time to figure out how to use well, and in some armies
there are several possible combinations (Bow armede
SHC that stay Shielded while their accompanying bw
armed troops fire). In some armies, like what I run,
Splitting fire is essential to getting the matchups I
want (moreover need) to win.

Todd

--- Peter Celella <pcelella@...> wrote:


---------------------------------

As one of the newbies here, I keep seeing references
to splitting
fire. Would anyone care to give a quick run down of
how this works?

Is it just attempting to line up your missile troops
in such a manner
that an enemy missile unit is forced to split fire
between two or more
units? Are there any other nuances to this? Any
recommendations about
going about it in different circumstances?

Hope I'm not offending anyone, but I would prefer to
read more of this
kind of information rather than disagreements about
TOG, or the
sematics of whether something has or has not
'changed.'

Peter





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.

[Bill Chriss]

>
> As one of the newbies here, I keep seeing references to splitting
> fire. Would anyone care to give a quick run down of how this works?
>
> Is it just attempting to line up your missile troops in such a manner
> that an enemy missile unit is forced to split fire between two or more
> units? Are there any other nuances to this? Any recommendations about
> going about it in different circumstances?
>
> Hope I'm not offending anyone, but I would prefer to read more of this
> kind of information rather than disagreements about TOG, or the
> sematics of whether something has or has not 'changed.'
>
> Peter
>


Episis. (that's Greek for Ditto).




Greek

[Bill Chriss]

>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, &quot;Peter Celella&quot;
> wrote:
> > I have a lot of trouble with opponents that have a large block
> (say 8
> > to 12 elements) of LMI missile troops (Reg or Irr). Is splitting
> fire
> > the best way to deal with these? Is it better to go where these
> units
> > are not? What if you need to clear such an unit out? Is there a
> > reasonable way to attack it?

Ewan said:
>
> Well... there are many ways to skin the cat of course,


I know of only one way, Peter, but that results from my etnocentric style
of play: Forced march a 12E unit of Hoplites at him 4-6 ranks deep. Screen
with psiloi until they are forced to recall or destroyed and then close to
contact with hoplites asap. If necessary, two punch next bound with
bloodthirsty Thessalian peltasts. That'll teach'em :-)

Hmmm, I think I'm beginning to understand why I keep losing...and losing....



Greek

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 hrisikos@... wrote:
> Ewan said:
> >
> > Well... there are many ways to skin the cat of course,

Credit here to John, not I.