Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

The historian in you has an opinion, the gamer in you has an opinion,
and the designer in you has an opinion. I will attempt to address them
all. But first to your reentactor buddies:

> 1. There is no evidence of a "slowing", and my re-enactor buddies back this
up.

You buds are probably Roman reenactors, and have trained in testudo, so
I will accept their judgment. However I have fought (not a
choreographed reenactment) in a shield wall many times. I have fought
as loose and close order (always as irregular I am afraid). My unit
could not begin to form a testudo and move as a cohesive mass at
anything resembling our tactical move. Granted we have not been trained
in testudo, and perhaps with that training you regain all your speed.
My experience lugging 10 pounds of shield around (not to mention 40-50
pounds of body armor) is that the poor bugger who has to hold it over
his head will be begging for a slow down.


Historian Jon - do you think the Romans moved at ALL times in testudo?

Gamer Jon - Why would a Warrior Roman unit so allowed ever NOT be in
testudo (except when the rules make him come out). I can approach and
charge in testudo, and even if I want to counter I get to stay in it, up
to the counter. I for one will be claiming testudo in bound 2 as my
first formation change in the advance phase. This is broken.

Designer Jon - Testudo for free? Wow? Lets look at some numbers. HI vs
MI. HI cost 2 points per figure more than MI and for that they get -1
weapon factor when attacked by JLS, D, B, Other Cav, Ch, El crew, P,
LTS, Other Inf, and when shieldless. That's a lot of stuff and 2 points
is ok with me. How about HI no testudo vs HI testudo. HI w/o cost 0
more than HI w/ testudo. The Haves get -2 weapon factors when faced
with JLS, D, B, S, SS, LB, and CB. Quite an impressive list for no
cost. Balanced? I think not.

Historian Jon - Were the Romans superior to their contemporaries? (I
think the answer is a resounding yes). Were the Romans a more expensive
army to maintain? (Again a probable resounding yes). Were they better
trained? Probably. So what? Historical armies were rarely equal.

Gamer Jon - Shouldn't they cost more? Given no other data and offered a
unit of HI testudo capable troops vs one that was not, which would you
choose? EIR allows tons of LHI aux infantry but also allows similarly
armed LHI legionaries (testudo capable). After getting the minimum
required Aux Inf, why would you buy more? Any one I know will take the
legionaries every time.

Designer Jon - Goals of your game? Balance? Flavor? You asked me to
play test. I feel part of my job as such is to point out rules holes.
I know from the posts on this subject and my own group there are many
who feel testudo is too cheap. I also know you and the horsemen think
it is fine.

Know that no matter what happens, I will continue to play this fine
game, and I do thank you for the opportunity to shape it. I know some
of my comments have brought about changes (however small), and some have
resulted in no change. That is a play testers lot, and I am comfortable
with it. Consider this my final volley on testudo.

Don

[joncleaves]

<<My unit could not begin to form a testudo and move as a cohesive mass at
anything resembling our tactical move.>>

Your "unit" (I smell SCA here) surely could make 80 yards in 15 minutes, I bet.
If so, then the precise number of paces is not the problem.
That leaves the desired 2/3/4/5 ratio we want to keep between troop types. We
have only moved off that ratio for extreme causes, like exhaustion or the very
heaviest of armor. I do not equate testudo to the armor worn by SHI or to full
exhaustion.

<<Historian Jon - do you think the Romans moved at ALL times in testudo?>>

Nope. But they did when near massed archers.

<<Gamer Jon - Why would a Warrior Roman unit so allowed ever NOT be in testudo
(except when the rules make him come out).>>

Don't know.

<< I for one will be claiming testudo in bound 2 as my
first formation change in the advance phase. This is broken. >>

So you feel. The FH and the greater majority of warrior players do not agree.
Testudo has worked this way and cost nothing extra since at least 1988.
Historical Roman players realize that Romans always approached archers this way.
Tournament Roman players don't play EIR, etc. And they know that there are many
better ways to beat shielded HI than by shooting at it anyway.
It is NOT broken.

<<Designer Jon - Testudo for free? Wow? Lets look at some numbers.>>

Yes, let's. Testudo HI are harder to shoot in some situations than non-testudo.
So are skirmishing LHI harder to shoot than non-skirmishing. Want to make
skirmishing cost more? If we change the point system for testudo despite the
fact that only a very small minority of players think it is an issue, it will
reduce even further the utility of EIR, etc. lists. Where will it end? How
much of a playtesting delay do we want to incur? How much are we going to
charge for testudo? What about the thousands of games since 1988 that say its
no big deal? Why shouldn't we charge for skirmish? How much should that cost?
How much playtesting will that incur?
The 8-80 points we might charge a Roman player for this very small (and it is
small, Don, unless you are trying to kill legionaires with archery) benefit is
not worth a substantial delay in the rules production even if there were
evidence that it was unbalancing. And there isn't any.

<<Designer Jon - Goals of your game? Balance? Flavor? You asked me to play
test. I feel part of my job as such is to point out rules holes. >>

It is. You have given us your version, as have many others. In the end, we
have to make some hard (and some easy!) decisions. You are doing exactly what
you are supposed to be doing. In fact, you and your group have given us more
than just about anyone. In this particular case, we do not agree.

<I know from the posts on this subject and my own group there are many who feel
testudo is too cheap.>>

Not all the emails we get are public (by far they are NOT). It is also NOT
majority rules, although a majority all saying one thing does hold sway.
Typically, the most vocal are those whose views are not currently in force.

<<I also know you and the horsemen think it is fine. >>

We are far from alone. I have actually gotten more private commentary about how
this and the point system issue have been discussed on the egroup than I have
gotten publicly about the issue itself.

<<Know that no matter what happens, I will continue to play this fine
game, and I do thank you for the opportunity to shape it. I know some
of my comments have brought about changes (however small), and some have
resulted in no change. That is a play testers lot, and I am comfortable
with it.>>

See above. You guys have been huge, and the preface to the rues will so state.

<< Consider this my final volley on testudo.>>

I'm ok with that.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

I definately don't want to beat a dead horse here, ~picks up a stick, eyes
the nag in the barn~, but I do want to say something about testudo, etc ....

I have also done some SCA stuff in the past, and I think that whats missing
is the fact that the drill in an SCA unit is not done on the same level as a
Roman Legion would do it. In this area, the testudo and pike phalanx is made
up of guys from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and all the small places
around. They practice individually and maybe get a few hours before the war
at practice as a unit. I also coach football, and know that if you took your
offensive line to one field, your receicers to another, and your running
back to a third, you would not expect them to execute plays at the same
level as an offense that is run with all players together.

If you ask me (and I'm NOT calling for a rules change!!!), the biggest
problem with formations like testudo, wedge and especially skirmish, is that
you get to revert out of them for free. The few times I have seen the
testudo on the SCA battlefield, it seemed to me that getting out of the
thing and back into line was much harder than forming it. The aplication of
this to skirmish is even greater. I have always wondered how it takes a
formation change to form it, but not one to get back in ranks. Anyone that
has ever spent one day in ROTC can tell you that forming guys into ranks
takes a bit of time, but when the word "Dismissed" is said, the magical
evaporation of men is quite astounding.

Then again, anyone that knows me, knows that I think all the new skirmish
rules are "wacked" and wish we had never left the old system of skirmishing.
Back before the changes to the skirmish rules, terrain troops were actually
used for what they were intended for, fighting in terrain. We now see armies
of high moral REG LHI/LMI kicking butt in the open by playing the
historically silly "To Skirmish or Not to Skirmish" game ....

But I digress ....

happy gaming, Greg