Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

In the hopes of starting a conversation that is a)not critical of
anything, and b)hopefully interesting ... I thought I would see how
the assorted brain trust feel about this one.

Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like most
people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach. ;-)

Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights as a
force multiplier for these troops?

Now, I have a personal preference, because I honestly think this is a
smarter way to play knight armies. On point:

1. Serious support troops leave you much less vulnerable to elephant
armies, which most would agree is the biggest challenge for knight
armies. You might not be able to trash these armies, but with at
least a few units that can kill enemy elephant units, and the support
troops to get these into contact, you can at least break even.

2. Quality support troops and more of them, allow you to dominate
aggressively placed terrain, rather than just using terrain to cut
down the table. This is especially true if playing an army that gives
you trouble frontally, as cutting down the table is perhaps not
entirely in your own best interest.

3. Quality support troops act as an additional force multiplier to
the light troops. I find this very important, as the "battle of the
lights", while not the end-all, is very important to the ability of
the knight to find his best target and kill it on his own time
schedule.

4. Many players, when playing against a knight army, will focus their
own tactics on trapping or deflecting the power of the knights, and
are less able to handle solid combines arms tactics.

Hopefully this will start the ball rolling. Hammer away.

[joncleaves]

It might help the discussion if you qualified what was a serious/quality support
troop and what was not. this way people know which side of the issue they stand
on.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:18 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Too Quiet Here


In the hopes of starting a conversation that is a)not critical of
anything, and b)hopefully interesting ... I thought I would see how
the assorted brain trust feel about this one.

Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like most
people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach. ;-)

Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights as a
force multiplier for these troops?

Now, I have a personal preference, because I honestly think this is a
smarter way to play knight armies. On point:

1. Serious support troops leave you much less vulnerable to elephant
armies, which most would agree is the biggest challenge for knight
armies. You might not be able to trash these armies, but with at
least a few units that can kill enemy elephant units, and the support
troops to get these into contact, you can at least break even.

2. Quality support troops and more of them, allow you to dominate
aggressively placed terrain, rather than just using terrain to cut
down the table. This is especially true if playing an army that gives
you trouble frontally, as cutting down the table is perhaps not
entirely in your own best interest.

3. Quality support troops act as an additional force multiplier to
the light troops. I find this very important, as the "battle of the
lights", while not the end-all, is very important to the ability of
the knight to find his best target and kill it on his own time
schedule.

4. Many players, when playing against a knight army, will focus their
own tactics on trapping or deflecting the power of the knights, and
are less able to handle solid combines arms tactics.

Hopefully this will start the ball rolling. Hammer away.








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

Good idea Jon ...

I would categorize serious support troops as things that can actually
participate in a fight against other quality troops. I've been
playing Italian Condotta these days and would call the
following, "serious" support troops:

Marines, Reg, C LHI 2HCT CB Sh
Moogs, Irr B LMI HTW JLS 1/2Sh
Pikes, Reg C HI/MI P Sh
Italian Infantry, Reg C LHI/LMI JLS Sh
Turks, Irr C LC JLS B Sh

These can fight, and offer opportunity to mix with each other and
with knights as effective fighting teams if used skillfully.

"Not-so-serious" support troops would include:
Reg D LMI CB
Reg C LC CB
Reg C LI B

These, while useful (I usually buy all but the LMI CB) are more
useful for pinning, influencing target priorities and shooting. You
wouldn't want any of these combined in a combat situation with your
knights, especially the two that have potentual to cause waver tests.

Hope that helps ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> It might help the discussion if you qualified what was a
serious/quality support troop and what was not. this way people know
which side of the issue they stand on.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:18 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Too Quiet Here
>
>
> In the hopes of starting a conversation that is a)not critical of
> anything, and b)hopefully interesting ... I thought I would see how
> the assorted brain trust feel about this one.
>
> Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
most
> people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
> with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
> term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
>
> Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
> matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights as
a
> force multiplier for these troops?
>
> Now, I have a personal preference, because I honestly think this is
a
> smarter way to play knight armies. On point:
>
> 1. Serious support troops leave you much less vulnerable to
elephant
> armies, which most would agree is the biggest challenge for knight
> armies. You might not be able to trash these armies, but with at
> least a few units that can kill enemy elephant units, and the
support
> troops to get these into contact, you can at least break even.
>
> 2. Quality support troops and more of them, allow you to dominate
> aggressively placed terrain, rather than just using terrain to cut
> down the table. This is especially true if playing an army that
gives
> you trouble frontally, as cutting down the table is perhaps not
> entirely in your own best interest.
>
> 3. Quality support troops act as an additional force multiplier to
> the light troops. I find this very important, as the "battle of the
> lights", while not the end-all, is very important to the ability of
> the knight to find his best target and kill it on his own time
> schedule.
>
> 4. Many players, when playing against a knight army, will focus
their
> own tactics on trapping or deflecting the power of the knights, and
> are less able to handle solid combines arms tactics.
>
> Hopefully this will start the ball rolling. Hammer away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>