Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 21:32:38 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:
Does the problem need an overall move of 120 for every close order
unit, or just the ability to catch evaders? >>

I'll leave this to be answered by those who see this as a problem. Like I
said, if I could change it, I'd just give them all 120p tactical moves and leave
their terrain problems the same.
And particularly for
certain historical close order troops?>>

We have looked into this at every turn with those troops who might have been
able to fight close but 'move faster' or at least in a more agile manner, but
the problems are simply too great. We considered Marian Roman LHI
legionaries, but there just wasn't the historical support for it. I know Scott
and I
will fight over it again when we get to Alexander's pikers....lol

Jon


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

[Doug]

Does the problem need an overall move of 120 for every close order
unit, or just the ability to catch evaders? And particularly for
certain historical close order troops?

Could the list rules give appropriate troops a detachment of
something loose order which would form a rear rank until it needed to
charge out to chase & catch the evaders?

>Not that 80p is unrealistic, but that 80p has one very unfortunate
>characteristic not shared by any other troop type. It can't charge
>after a march without
>the enemy's cooperation. (HI marches to 240p, other guy sits, HI approaches
>80p, still no charge..).
>
>In addition, it cannot 'catch' LMI/LHI, which is the real issue you are
>discussing. MI Spartans would care nothing of Kardakes shooting if
>they could nail
>them in a charge.
>
>I suggest those who are motivated to see close order foot take a more
>dominant role play games with 120p movement and record the results
>and send them to
>me. Play a tourney with that rule in effect and see what happens.
>
>What I believe to
>be true is that the desire to make close foot slower than loose/open was not
>balanced against what was possible from a charging/evading standpoint when the
>engine was originally designed. I was able to fix most of the things that
>didn't work about it, but this one I had to let go.... Jon