Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

kelly wilkinson wrote:
>I'd scrap the whole Moldavian thing and play Later Hungarians. You can
>get plenty of Viteji LC and better Knights as well as better foot.
>Just my two cents.

I've been told the same by a couple of people, and have to as the very
serious question of Scott et al of why is it that the experts consider
the Wallachian list uncompetitive when compared to the Hungarians (and
Ottomans for that matter) when by and large the Wallachian/Moldavian
armies beat both of these opponents far more often than not, even after
revising some wins awarded by dodgy Marxist historians to losses.

I'm fully aware of how sparse on the ground documentary evidence of
army composition in English (or other languages for that matter) for
the two principalities is. Nevertheless, given historical results it
strikes me that the list should be considered "competitive" with their
historical neighbours, yet its not...

Have fun!
Cole

[joncleaves]

experts? lol

I don't know about experts, but I think;
a. Wallachians can beat Hungarians and do well against historical opponents in
general
b. I'd take Wallachians over Hungarians in an open.

Just my $0.02
J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:56:11 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Wallachians/Moldavians vs Hungarians




kelly wilkinson wrote:
>I'd scrap the whole Moldavian thing and play Later Hungarians. You can
>get plenty of Viteji LC and better Knights as well as better foot.
>Just my two cents.

I've been told the same by a couple of people, and have to as the very
serious question of Scott et al of why is it that the experts consider
the Wallachian list uncompetitive when compared to the Hungarians (and
Ottomans for that matter) when by and large the Wallachian/Moldavian
armies beat both of these opponents far more often than not, even after
revising some wins awarded by dodgy Marxist historians to losses.

I'm fully aware of how sparse on the ground documentary evidence of
army composition in English (or other languages for that matter) for
the two principalities is. Nevertheless, given historical results it
strikes me that the list should be considered "competitive" with their
historical neighbours, yet its not...

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I've done well with the Wallachians in a tournament down in Texas and like them,
But I feel that the Hungarian list has more options and allows you to get those
core Wallachians/moldavian troops that you want plus more of the big scary guys
(SHK).

JonCleaves@... wrote:experts? lol

I don't know about experts, but I think;
a. Wallachians can beat Hungarians and do well against historical opponents in
general
b. I'd take Wallachians over Hungarians in an open.

Just my $0.02
J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:56:11 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Wallachians/Moldavians vs Hungarians




kelly wilkinson wrote:
>I'd scrap the whole Moldavian thing and play Later Hungarians. You can
>get plenty of Viteji LC and better Knights as well as better foot.
>Just my two cents.

I've been told the same by a couple of people, and have to as the very
serious question of Scott et al of why is it that the experts consider
the Wallachian list uncompetitive when compared to the Hungarians (and
Ottomans for that matter) when by and large the Wallachian/Moldavian
armies beat both of these opponents far more often than not, even after
revising some wins awarded by dodgy Marxist historians to losses.

I'm fully aware of how sparse on the ground documentary evidence of
army composition in English (or other languages for that matter) for
the two principalities is. Nevertheless, given historical results it
strikes me that the list should be considered "competitive" with their
historical neighbours, yet its not...

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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



---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Nicholas Cioran wrote:
> kelly wilkinson wrote:
> >I'd scrap the whole Moldavian thing and play Later Hungarians. You can
> >get plenty of Viteji LC and better Knights as well as better foot.
>
> I've been told the same by a couple of people, and have to as the very
> serious question of Scott et al of why is it that the experts consider
> the Wallachian list uncompetitive when compared to the Hungarians (and
> Ottomans for that matter) when by and large the Wallachian/Moldavian
> armies beat both of these opponents far more often than not, even after
> revising some wins awarded by dodgy Marxist historians to losses.

If I were a historian, I'd be a dodgy Marxist one. As it is, I'm just a
dodgy marxist gamer. But I probably fall into the 'expert' class. {ha.
How's that for self-aggrandisement?}

I don't like L. Hungarians that much, although they have plus points; and
certainly the Moldavians are competitive, both against them and in an open
tournament environment. I actually think they offer more scope for expert
play, where the LH are a simpler army to use in most incarnations.

e