Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

scott holder · Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: Vikings

I'm very interested in how Ewan (and others) will approach the Vikings.

The biggest variable will be potential List Rule changes. Since those are far from firm as yet, I assume that any Viking list discussion could change after we decide how to proceed on the other issues. Hopefully Cold Wars will provide some good feedback.

I've said this before but Vikings have a historical rep that far exceeded their batting average. Sure, they were great at raiding, raping defenseless women, looting monastaries, etc. But on those instances when they fought armies that were predominantlly cav, they got spanked. Thus, at one level, I'm comfortable with Vikings the way they are.

Of course that comfort doesn't actually extend into the "barbarianess" of the proposed List Rules, otherwise we wouldn't be considering them.

So, I assume that any approach Ewan might take will use the Cold Wars Barbarian Playtest rules, at least, that's how I'd like to see you (Ewan) do it. Smile

I've horsed around with Viking lists for years but not seriously in Warrior. I've always had two schools of thought. One is you lead the attacak with all your high morale, well-armed guys. If you win, great. If you lose, the problem is all your Irr C guys hanging around in the back tend to tank their waver tests. Of course the Irr C guys leading the charge don't tend to have the oomph you might need to bust up the opponent, then come in and mop up with the higher morale stuff.

All of this is stated in gross generalities which doesn't really help in terms of list concoction. Nor does it address the impact of the potential new Barbarian List rules.

I'm guessing the continued knock on Vikings will be the lack of skirmishers and the percieved poor cost/benefit ratio (ie, blowing points on some "useless" troop type) of the Warrior Axemen and the Hirdsmen (the ones with 2HCW and JLS, not the Hirdsmen Bowmen). Also, the relative poor morale of the Warriors could be a detriment to some.

Lemme set the stage for Ewan's list (and put pressure on him to follow thru Smile

).

I see one way around the Warrior Axemen issue is to use the required 6E along with 6E of Warrior Spearmen. You now have a tidy 12E unit that can absorb *some* damage but gains the potential +2 and can inflict plenty in it's own right.

The kicker is morale. The above unit theoretically loves elephants but will never get a charge off because of the unease. The Sacred Standard won't be seen as cost effective plus, even in 25mm, you'd have to be awfully careful in deployment and execution. And that goes double if you're depending on a PA standard to "ward off" unease. A rash general attached is one way around this, heh heh, not the best approach. Another is to use Beserkirs in a detachement that essentially never leaves the parent body.

Okay, the cost is 10 points but assume a 12E unit in 2 ranks (and I'm not so sure that's the best approach to contacting an opponent with the Barbarian List Rules). That's 2E of Berserkirs and 4E of Warrior Axemen in the first rank, 6E of Warrior Spearmen in the second rank. Presto! Instant anti-elephant units. Taking two of these meets your Warrior Axemen and Spearmen requirements. Hope you never take a waver test. Smile

I'd max out on Viking Skirmishers for obvious reasons and I'd attempt to purchase my generals as single elements mounted on horseback.

I'd also max out on the Hirdsmen Bowmen in close order as well as Warrior Bowmen, also in close order. Unit size I'll leave to the experts since I never seem to get the right balance for that. Armor is also something I'd consider for the front rank but also realize that not everybody thinks that's best.

That just leaves you with 6E of required Hirdsmen which I'd guess would be organized into three 2E units that loiter in the back to be the second wave. Or is it the other way around? This approach is not unlike how one organizes the Spanish around largish blocks of HTW-armed infantry and little 2E units of Irr A and B guys to fill in the gaps.

Thus endeth my Viking approach. Which will probably be crucified by others!

scott

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Vikings

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I don't believe the Vikes had a rep for being a dangerous battelfield army against another battlefield army. They certainly had a rep for terrorizing non-battlefield armies.

That said, I have long had a plan tol talk to Scott about the idea of some water feature/boat list rule(s).

I also believe we are considering the march on 3's with FP rule for several DA forces...

scott holder · Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject:

Mark: Jon said it best. When we did Vikings, I took a long hard look at their track record and their battlefield army performance was quite mixed at best.

Jon is good to point out some of the "go back and look at" issues regarding Vikings, the "getting off a boat easier" list rule being one I've got in my back pocket to look at.

LEHI: I dont feel this applies to the Vikings. To me, LEHI is purely a Japanese thing and I've never been struck that it's applicable anywhere outside of there.

Terrain picks: Certainly something to look at but if we go that route, there are probably other armies with an "amphibious rep" that we'd hafta look at, thus, I'm not so sure (knee jerk reaction mind you) about this one.

Boats: See above. Will get some serious attention

Faster Marching: What Jon said--the current Cold Wars playtest rule could be applied here.

I feel that the Vikings will benefit greatly from whatever barbarian rules we end up with and perhaps a couple of other little tinkers as described above.

scott

Martin · Guest

There is a 1300 point comp coming up here in OZ that I am hoping will use the experimental barbarian list rules (this has not yet been decided). If it does I was going to brush the cobwebs off my beloved vikings and have a go. I wrote the following list

Cinc+pa+5 "IB" LHI, 2HCW, sh

Sub+p+5 "IB" LHI, 2HCW, sh

12 EL "IB" 1/2 LHI, 2HCW, SH 1/2 LMI, JLS, SH

12 EL "IC" 1/2 LHI, 2HCW, SH 1/2 LMI, JLS, SH

12 EL "IC" 1/2 LHI, 2HCW, BW, SH 1/2 LMI JLS, BW, SH

2X8 EL "IC" LMI, JLS, SH

2X4 EL "IA" LMI, 2HCW, SH (THESE ARE BOTH DETATCHMENTS OF THE 8 EL UNITS ABOVE)

3X4 EL "IC" LI, JLS SH

This was written to maximise the effect of the new list rules. I fell loose order is still the way to go as you need to charge to the full bonus. I would perhaps reconsider this with the all 'C' morale units if I had figures based that way. With virtually all the troops in front line 12 el units (apart from the generals) the flanks would be very vulnerable. I would probably endeavour to deploy on only part of the table and hinge one flank on terrain. On the other flank I would flank march one of the 12 el units (probably one of the ones with a detatchment of beserkers). What do people think?

Martin

Adrian Williams · Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:00 am Post subject:

What do people think>

Looking like a norseman doesn't mean you have to use the army!

Ewan McNay · Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

Scott:

scott holder · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject:

I was wondering about the optimal way of fighting the 12E barbarian trash blocks and had looked hard at the 3 ranks of 4E.

I'd still max out the various bowmen and then work on the rest of the army. Sacrifice armor on as much as you can except the bowmen and that first rank of stuff in the 12E/3 ranks units.

SHK pose a problem and obviously the skill part of the game will be to get as many bowmen opposing them as possible. Clearly this is made more difficult by the bowmen being close order, irr foot. But players more used to counterpunching play might find that mindset more appropriate to a Viking army built around this approach. That way, you play super aggressive with you LI in order to slow down/screen off baaad things while you arrange your stuff the best you can.

Now, armies with lotsa LC are gonna give the Vikes fits--that's a "no duh" statement so I guess the key there would be to restrict the frontage, possibly even more brutally then Ewan suggests, then lead with the bowmen.

Finally, this subject dovetails nicely with the one on Nike Byzantines under the Tactics section. Another fun little task would be "how to compile a Viking list against a Nike Byz opponent" to give this some historical (or sorts) flavor.

Ewan, what was Chris D's "old way" of running Vikings?

scott

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject:

I can comment a little on Damour's vikings - since he beat my Aztecs many a year ago.

Chris had 5 units of 12E Bondi and two 6E LI Jls,Sh units that lead the way. Their purpose was to infict as much damage as possible and then hopefully evaporate. He didn't even throw terrain - "It just slows me down" he typically stated or something like that.

The 2nd line was comprised of 2E units of Huscarls and Berserkers and Gael Gall who would hit the tired and disordered units to sweep the field.

Chris only ran into problems when the Bondi were too effective and remained alive - and therefore in the way of what his second wave wanted to accomplish.

Tough to do in some aspects with the 50% demorilization rate - it was 2/3 back in the day.

It always amazed me and still does how Chris is able to lead w/ the type of troops he does. He is fearless and a worthy opponent.

Todd K

scott holder · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject:

Ah, okay. This is akin to leading with the low morale folks and hope the few waver tests the high morale folks take don't affect the outcome.

Command structure should be an easy away around the demoralization issues Todd raises when using this approach.

Now for me, the key in either approach is what size to make the bowmen units.

scott

Martin · Guest

All this maxing out on the archers rubbish?! I never envisaged Vikings as a sort of dark age achaemenid Persian!

Martin