Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I've seen 'em hold down a marsh real good.


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

[joncleaves]

yes, I agree. I have seen them win some fights defending the edge of a BUA.


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

What is the best way to employ Ashigaru in Warrior?

[Greg Regets]

As enemy troops.

G

----- Original Message -----
From: spocksleftball
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Tactical Question


What is the best way to employ Ashigaru in Warrior?



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

In my 15mm army they always managed to hold the fortifications I gave
them to defend......... :)

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I've seen 'em hold down a marsh real good.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While these answers have all been clever, I doubt I'll be using any
BUA with my army. Here is the question respecified:

What size block of Ashigaru best provide a balance between missile
absorbtion, manuverability, and HTH endurance?

I'm leaning towards massive units, but as we all know that keeps them
from actually attacking. If I keep them in a 2x? column, then they
can manuver but loose much of their ability to absorb damage.

My fear is mounted archers and of course any charging mounted. Yet,
I want to use them. Any thoughts welcome.

boyd

[Greg Regets]

Question one is, why wouldn't you consider a BUA? With a 50/50 chance of getting
it and the ability to deploy forward, it is a worthy consideration.

Another might be a hill with steep sides. You would get a bit of help against
missile fire, protection from mounted and close order, and the option to charge
impetuously or stand halted against an opponent coming in at -3. This can be a
very effective tactic if you are sly in your placement of the hill/hills, as any
troops with a vs. HTH weapon minus (your 2HCT), when combined with a vs. terrain
HTH minus (haulted higher) has great potential for survivability. Even very well
armed opponents will need impetuosity to compete, and fatigue can become an
issue.

I suppose I considered the question of large units, small frontage, and
up-armor, a bit obvious and did not respond in that area. My apologies. Chris
gave you some good suggestions, even though I am on the opposite spectrum of
thought with the cavalry issue. Chris though, is a fine player and has used this
army reasonably effectively in the past. I on the other hand only have
experience beating on it.

The thought of running them with the cavalry wouldn't be my first choice. What
cavalry do you see out there on a regular basis that you can compete with on a
regular basis? Running them together makes an assumption that you are going to
survive cavalry combat, something that I see as problematic at best. You would
also have to fear massed cavalry combats, where leaving gaps in which to
counter-attack, would by rote leave your opponent gaps to attack through after
one bound of combat - the two element gap closing to one if a shoulder is
engaged. Chris is a very crafty player though and I would love to hear his
expanded thoughts on this, but I see this as a difficult tactic that will not
work against good players.

What would I do? Thats an easy one. I would buy one large unit and use it in
aggressively placed terrain such as described above. Chris' idea to use smaller
units to find opportunities in a continuing melee is a winner in my opinion, as
you would have strong factors going in. If your terrain is well placed and
secure, you could even use this terrain to set up potential flank shots against
opponents attacking past it.

It is not a sin to play defensively, and this is an army I would give some
thought to that form of tactic. There is a HUGE difference between making a fort
and sitting in it (something we all detest), and making a solid defense that is
difficult for an enemy to spot coming in (by crafty deployment and march), and
comes together at the last moment. The key would be expert and deceptive
deployment, and remembering that your opponent has orders too - ensure that he
obeys them. I'm sure that statement will be attacked roundly, but like football
strategy, there are many ways to win - the key not being your method, but your
execution of the method.

Good luck ... Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: spocksleftball
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tactical Question


While these answers have all been clever, I doubt I'll be using any
BUA with my army. Here is the question respecified:

What size block of Ashigaru best provide a balance between missile
absorbtion, manuverability, and HTH endurance?

I'm leaning towards massive units, but as we all know that keeps them
from actually attacking. If I keep them in a 2x? column, then they
can manuver but loose much of their ability to absorb damage.

My fear is mounted archers and of course any charging mounted. Yet,
I want to use them. Any thoughts welcome.

boyd



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Greg,
Thanks for the reply. My original line of thinking has been along the line you
described, but for a few minor difficulties I've pondered. First, if I saw a
large block of ashigaru upon a steep sided hill, my only thought would be how to
insure they stay there. This can be done with a 4E block of LI B/sh or 2E LC
B/sh. Effectively, to either side this terrain becomes impassible and thus an
obsticle; the same for BUA unless in the center of the board. conversly, it
allows the opponant more troops to put upon my fighting forces, which also being
shieldless will have enough to consider. Second, this army requires terrain.
brush (is there any such thing in Japan?) is essential for an all LMI army to
withstand even modest mounted forces IMO. So yes, I'm considering terrain. I
see your point about the samurai mounted, as they are sheildless and will hardly
enguage in combat favorably in most circumstances.

Here is my thinking, so make comments:
12E columns of Ashigaru in 2x wide columns in echelon. As chris said, the first
two ranks of LTS, then bow. Push through brush with Samurai in smaller units to
either side with mounted as a reserve.
I do appriciate all of your commentary, trust me. I've typically only played
wild armies like Normans or skirmish armies like Maurikian. this army is unlike
anything I used to, so all help and advice is processed. It is extremely
fragile yet has a kick if allowed to use it. Most of my experience has been
with armies that can absorb punishment while I manuver or have a massive strike
capasity. Samurai have neither, though history would dissagree
thanks again
boyd

"Greggory A. Regets" wrote:Question one is, why wouldn't you consider a BUA?
With a 50/50 chance of getting it and the ability to deploy forward, it is a
worthy consideration.

Another might be a hill with steep sides. You would get a bit of help against
missile fire, protection from mounted and close order, and the option to charge
impetuously or stand halted against an opponent coming in at -3. This can be a
very effective tactic if you are sly in your placement of the hill/hills, as any
troops with a vs. HTH weapon minus (your 2HCT), when combined with a vs. terrain
HTH minus (haulted higher) has great potential for survivability. Even very well
armed opponents will need impetuosity to compete, and fatigue can become an
issue.

I suppose I considered the question of large units, small frontage, and
up-armor, a bit obvious and did not respond in that area. My apologies. Chris
gave you some good suggestions, even though I am on the opposite spectrum of
thought with the cavalry issue. Chris though, is a fine player and has used this
army reasonably effectively in the past. I on the other hand only have
experience beating on it.

The thought of running them with the cavalry wouldn't be my first choice. What
cavalry do you see out there on a regular basis that you can compete with on a
regular basis? Running them together makes an assumption that you are going to
survive cavalry combat, something that I see as problematic at best. You would
also have to fear massed cavalry combats, where leaving gaps in which to
counter-attack, would by rote leave your opponent gaps to attack through after
one bound of combat - the two element gap closing to one if a shoulder is
engaged. Chris is a very crafty player though and I would love to hear his
expanded thoughts on this, but I see this as a difficult tactic that will not
work against good players.

What would I do? Thats an easy one. I would buy one large unit and use it in
aggressively placed terrain such as described above. Chris' idea to use smaller
units to find opportunities in a continuing melee is a winner in my opinion, as
you would have strong factors going in. If your terrain is well placed and
secure, you could even use this terrain to set up potential flank shots against
opponents attacking past it.

It is not a sin to play defensively, and this is an army I would give some
thought to that form of tactic. There is a HUGE difference between making a fort
and sitting in it (something we all detest), and making a solid defense that is
difficult for an enemy to spot coming in (by crafty deployment and march), and
comes together at the last moment. The key would be expert and deceptive
deployment, and remembering that your opponent has orders too - ensure that he
obeys them. I'm sure that statement will be attacked roundly, but like football
strategy, there are many ways to win - the key not being your method, but your
execution of the method.

Good luck ... Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: spocksleftball
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tactical Question


While these answers have all been clever, I doubt I'll be using any
BUA with my army. Here is the question respecified:

What size block of Ashigaru best provide a balance between missile
absorbtion, manuverability, and HTH endurance?

I'm leaning towards massive units, but as we all know that keeps them
from actually attacking. If I keep them in a 2x? column, then they
can manuver but loose much of their ability to absorb damage.

My fear is mounted archers and of course any charging mounted. Yet,
I want to use them. Any thoughts welcome.

boyd



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

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

[Greg Regets]

So ... if he pins you with LI and ignores the space next to the terrain, wait
until the rest of his line is engaged, then strike of the hill, run the LI off
and, you know the rest. The key is to creatively place the terrain and have a
useful deployment in proximity to it. Right?

This is all silly advice from me though. I would never play an army like this,
nor buy such large units, hence pinning large parts of my army with lights is
difficult. One unit can run lights off, or cause a recall, and the rest are
free.

Good luck though :)



----- Original Message -----
From: spocksleftball@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Tactical Question



Greg,
Thanks for the reply. My original line of thinking has been along the line
you described, but for a few minor difficulties I've pondered. First, if I saw
a large block of ashigaru upon a steep sided hill, my only thought would be how
to insure they stay there. This can be done with a 4E block of LI B/sh or 2E LC
B/sh. Effectively, to either side this terrain becomes impassible and thus an
obsticle; the same for BUA unless in the center of the board. conversly, it
allows the opponant more troops to put upon my fighting forces, which also being
shieldless will have enough to consider. Second, this army requires terrain.
brush (is there any such thing in Japan?) is essential for an all LMI army to
withstand even modest mounted forces IMO. So yes, I'm considering terrain. I
see your point about the samurai mounted, as they are sheildless and will hardly
enguage in combat favorably in most circumstances.

Here is my thinking, so make comments:
12E columns of Ashigaru in 2x wide columns in echelon. As chris said, the
first two ranks of LTS, then bow. Push through brush with Samurai in smaller
units to either side with mounted as a reserve.
I do appriciate all of your commentary, trust me. I've typically only played
wild armies like Normans or skirmish armies like Maurikian. this army is unlike
anything I used to, so all help and advice is processed. It is extremely
fragile yet has a kick if allowed to use it. Most of my experience has been
with armies that can absorb punishment while I manuver or have a massive strike
capasity. Samurai have neither, though history would dissagree
thanks again
boyd

"Greggory A. Regets" wrote:Question one is, why wouldn't you consider a BUA?
With a 50/50 chance of getting it and the ability to deploy forward, it is a
worthy consideration.

Another might be a hill with steep sides. You would get a bit of help against
missile fire, protection from mounted and close order, and the option to charge
impetuously or stand halted against an opponent coming in at -3. This can be a
very effective tactic if you are sly in your placement of the hill/hills, as any
troops with a vs. HTH weapon minus (your 2HCT), when combined with a vs. terrain
HTH minus (haulted higher) has great potential for survivability. Even very well
armed opponents will need impetuosity to compete, and fatigue can become an
issue.

I suppose I considered the question of large units, small frontage, and
up-armor, a bit obvious and did not respond in that area. My apologies. Chris
gave you some good suggestions, even though I am on the opposite spectrum of
thought with the cavalry issue. Chris though, is a fine player and has used this
army reasonably effectively in the past. I on the other hand only have
experience beating on it.

The thought of running them with the cavalry wouldn't be my first choice. What
cavalry do you see out there on a regular basis that you can compete with on a
regular basis? Running them together makes an assumption that you are going to
survive cavalry combat, something that I see as problematic at best. You would
also have to fear massed cavalry combats, where leaving gaps in which to
counter-attack, would by rote leave your opponent gaps to attack through after
one bound of combat - the two element gap closing to one if a shoulder is
engaged. Chris is a very crafty player though and I would love to hear his
expanded thoughts on this, but I see this as a difficult tactic that will not
work against good players.

What would I do? Thats an easy one. I would buy one large unit and use it in
aggressively placed terrain such as described above. Chris' idea to use smaller
units to find opportunities in a continuing melee is a winner in my opinion, as
you would have strong factors going in. If your terrain is well placed and
secure, you could even use this terrain to set up potential flank shots against
opponents attacking past it.

It is not a sin to play defensively, and this is an army I would give some
thought to that form of tactic. There is a HUGE difference between making a fort
and sitting in it (something we all detest), and making a solid defense that is
difficult for an enemy to spot coming in (by crafty deployment and march), and
comes together at the last moment. The key would be expert and deceptive
deployment, and remembering that your opponent has orders too - ensure that he
obeys them. I'm sure that statement will be attacked roundly, but like football
strategy, there are many ways to win - the key not being your method, but your
execution of the method.

Good luck ... Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: spocksleftball
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tactical Question


While these answers have all been clever, I doubt I'll be using any
BUA with my army. Here is the question respecified:

What size block of Ashigaru best provide a balance between missile
absorbtion, manuverability, and HTH endurance?

I'm leaning towards massive units, but as we all know that keeps them
from actually attacking. If I keep them in a 2x? column, then they
can manuver but loose much of their ability to absorb damage.

My fear is mounted archers and of course any charging mounted. Yet,
I want to use them. Any thoughts welcome.

boyd



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Don Coon]

> Question one is, why wouldn't you consider a BUA? With a 50/50 chance of
getting it and the ability to deploy forward, it is a worthy consideration.

I own and play fuedal Japanese. They are difficult to work with but can
win. I have even beaten Yuans with them. My favored tactic is to take a
major water feature, and 3 gullies. My loose order can move through the
gullies fairly easily. Rather than stand behind them and shoot at my
opponent (who wants to play this way), I move up to the forward edge of the
gullies as soon as possible and use them to fall back through. I use huge
bodies of high caliber troops and 2E bodies of trash for spot impetuous
charges. I am using the list with close order troops too, and I deploy them
solid in the non gully area of the board. The rest of the area I work with
my mounted bowmen. Have to keep skirmishing, but the do fight 1.5 ranks so
are not completely useless in HTH. The biggest probelem with this army is
command and control. Almost all the troops are missile troops, so must be
prompted to charge.

Don