Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Another request for a tactics lesson from the esteemed experts on this
forum.

Playing at Pointcon recently, I made a mistake that cost me a win in
one of my games with my handling of LC. I made the beginner error of
having my HC too close behind my LC, messing up their evade movement,
resulting in them breaking, and then even worse, routing through my HC
thereby routing them in turn. Ewan spotted this from another table
after the fact, and said he knew that might happen, just based on my
deployment.

So, I know that the rudimentary recommendation is to never have
ANYTHING behind your LC. But is it as simple as this. Don't you want
your backup HC somewhere in the vicinity to counterpunch? If so, how
should you space them to make this happen? How should you initially
deploy your LC and HC in a combined command to prevent traffic jams in
later bounds? If you also have bow armed LI in the same command, how
should you position them?

I hope these are not too basic questions, although I find I get very
useful advice when I go looking for these kinds of answers.

Thanks guys

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 15 Peter Celella said: ---
>
> Playing at Pointcon recently, I made a mistake that cost me a win in
> one of my games with my handling of LC. I made the beginner error of
> having my HC too close behind my LC, messing up their evade movement,
> resulting in them breaking, and then even worse, routing through my HC
> thereby routing them in turn. Ewan spotted this from another table
> after the fact, and said he knew that might happen, just based on my
> deployment.
>
> So, I know that the rudimentary recommendation is to never have
> ANYTHING behind your LC. But is it as simple as this. Don't you want
> your backup HC somewhere in the vicinity to counterpunch? If so, how
> should you space them to make this happen? How should you initially
> deploy your LC and HC in a combined command to prevent traffic jams in
> later bounds? If you also have bow armed LI in the same command, how
> should you position them?
>

Well, the first step is to realize that there's a fundamentally different
interaction between the way LI are affected by being charged, and the way LC
are affected by being charged.

LI are easier to rout in combat and easier to catch when evading, but because
they don't cause anyone to waver, they invite countercharging through against
pursuers. Setting up a situation so that you can eliminate LI without being
vulnerable to this countercharge is _the_ challenge in fighting enemy LI. And a
key to defending your own LI is to put potential counterchargers behind them,
which (a) makes this countercharging threat real, and (b) also meets the
support conditions for LI, making them less likely to be uneasy.

LC are entirely different. LC do _not_ want to be caught evading, and their 200p
tactical move is their great strength. Remember, the results of combat section
works out such that LC are almost never recoiling from a combat. They are
either not in hand to hand contact at all, or they are winning, or they are
routing. There's very little in between. If charged by superior foot, LC will
evade and get away. If fighting mounted and losing, LC have to break off, not
recoil. And breakers off caught become routers.

So there's really no purpose to putting troops behind your LC. It doesn't give
them added support; any steady body nearby will do that, it doesn't have to be
behind. You really aren't going to be charging through your LC, since if
someone is in contact with them your LC are probably routing, and thus you'll
be waver testing. Good battle plans are _not_ built around "first I'll take a
waver test, and then..."

Having HC interposed between your LC can be effective. Typical situation: your
opponent has JLS-armed LC, and you have bow-armed LC. You're trying to get to
80p to get off a close range shot, and your opponent is going to try and charge
you from outside 80p to preempt just such a shot. An adjacent HC unit can
actually charge _his_ LC, driving him back and allowing you to continue your
advance. Enemy shooters on the line can be drawn away from your HC by the LC to
allow the HC to advance (a useful tactic against loose order foot who waver for
being charged by the HC), or drawn away from the LC by skirmishing HC enabling
the LC to advance and charge (a useful tactic against enemy LI where you'd
rather hit them with non-impetuous LC than get your HC stuck to a unit of LI
and thus vulnerable to countercharges.

The ideal, of course, would be altnerating LC and LI with HC behind the LI.

So in all situations you want space behind your LC, preferably at least 480
paces (in case you evade 200p, get caught, have to break off, and then roll
long having to break off another 280p).

Hope that helps some.


-Mark Stone

Mark:

Thanks - that was very enlightening. You make it seem simple enough
that I don't know why I couldn't see it myself. One of these days I'm
going to go back through the archives to cut out all these snippets of
wisdom you've posted and paste them into a Warrior player's guide.

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> Well, the first step is to realize that there's a fundamentally
different
> interaction between the way LI are affected by being charged, and
the way LC
> are affected by being charged.
>
> LI are easier to rout in combat and easier to catch when evading,
but because
> they don't cause anyone to waver, they invite countercharging
through against
> pursuers. Setting up a situation so that you can eliminate LI
without being
> vulnerable to this countercharge is _the_ challenge in fighting
enemy LI. And a
> key to defending your own LI is to put potential counterchargers
behind them,
> which (a) makes this countercharging threat real, and (b) also meets the
> support conditions for LI, making them less likely to be uneasy.
>
> LC are entirely different. LC do _not_ want to be caught evading,
and their 200p
> tactical move is their great strength. Remember, the results of
combat section
> works out such that LC are almost never recoiling from a combat.
They are
> either not in hand to hand contact at all, or they are winning, or
they are
> routing. There's very little in between. If charged by superior
foot, LC will
> evade and get away. If fighting mounted and losing, LC have to break
off, not
> recoil. And breakers off caught become routers.
>
> So there's really no purpose to putting troops behind your LC. It
doesn't give
> them added support; any steady body nearby will do that, it doesn't
have to be
> behind. You really aren't going to be charging through your LC, since if
> someone is in contact with them your LC are probably routing, and
thus you'll
> be waver testing. Good battle plans are _not_ built around "first
I'll take a
> waver test, and then..."
>
> Having HC interposed between your LC can be effective. Typical
situation: your
> opponent has JLS-armed LC, and you have bow-armed LC. You're trying
to get to
> 80p to get off a close range shot, and your opponent is going to try
and charge
> you from outside 80p to preempt just such a shot. An adjacent HC
unit can
> actually charge _his_ LC, driving him back and allowing you to
continue your
> advance. Enemy shooters on the line can be drawn away from your HC
by the LC to
> allow the HC to advance (a useful tactic against loose order foot
who waver for
> being charged by the HC), or drawn away from the LC by skirmishing
HC enabling
> the LC to advance and charge (a useful tactic against enemy LI where
you'd
> rather hit them with non-impetuous LC than get your HC stuck to a
unit of LI
> and thus vulnerable to countercharges.
>
> The ideal, of course, would be altnerating LC and LI with HC behind
the LI.
>
> So in all situations you want space behind your LC, preferably at
least 480
> paces (in case you evade 200p, get caught, have to break off, and
then roll
> long having to break off another 280p).
>
> Hope that helps some.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Peter - have you read through Mark's "Skirmisher Doctrine" paper? I
can not recommend it enough and it covers exactly this topic plus many
others relating to LI, LC and whatever shock troops come behind the
LI. Mark, is this still in the files section here? I just had to
download a copy of this so I have it on my machine.

I would add a tidbit to what Mark has said. Recently more and more
folks are becoming familiar with the breakthrough rules, which adds a
dimension to what enemy stuff can do to your LI with something else
behind.

As a result, I have learnt the hard way also be very careful with the
spacing of your shock replacers behind your LI. You need to be close
enough to provide support but not close enough to be caught flat-
footed by an enemy pursuit or breakthrough move.

I think Mark covers this in the Skirmisher paper but not sure he
references breakthough threats as well as pursuit threats - although I
think the spacing for each is essentially the same just awareness of
the capabilities are different.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
> Thanks - that was very enlightening. You make it seem simple enough
> that I don't know why I couldn't see it myself. One of these days I'm
> going to go back through the archives to cut out all these snippets
of
> wisdom you've posted and paste them into a Warrior player's guide.

John:

You're right! I did read that tactica, but forgot (or didn't
appreciate at the time) the specifics. I'm going to have to go back a
read it again. Everytime I play a game of Warrior, it opens my eyes to
a new nuance - I'm sure on my reread, there will be stuff that will
make much more significant sense than it did when I originally read it.

Yeah - that stuff about converted charges and breakthroughs. I learned
a lesson with that playing Ewan. I didn't realize that if a
breakthrough contacted an unit behind the original that that was a
converted charge, and more significantly, that the converted charge
allows no support fire from the unit being charged. I also didn't
immediately comprehend that in my next game against the Midianites
that going for these kinds of converted charges (if possible) were a
tactic I could have tried against all those double bow armed camels.

I have more open eyes than I had several weeks ago - thanks again to all.

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
>
> Peter - have you read through Mark's "Skirmisher Doctrine" paper? I
> can not recommend it enough and it covers exactly this topic plus many
> others relating to LI, LC and whatever shock troops come behind the
> LI. Mark, is this still in the files section here? I just had to
> download a copy of this so I have it on my machine.
>
> I would add a tidbit to what Mark has said. Recently more and more
> folks are becoming familiar with the breakthrough rules, which adds a
> dimension to what enemy stuff can do to your LI with something else
> behind.
>
> As a result, I have learnt the hard way also be very careful with the
> spacing of your shock replacers behind your LI. You need to be close
> enough to provide support but not close enough to be caught flat-
> footed by an enemy pursuit or breakthrough move.
>
> I think Mark covers this in the Skirmisher paper but not sure he
> references breakthough threats as well as pursuit threats - although I
> think the spacing for each is essentially the same just awareness of
> the capabilities are different.
>