Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[suvarov]

Does anyone ever play this game outside the tournament format?

I have started playing regularly but have never played in a tournament or with that format. This seems to be significant as the style of play and good tactics seem to be different when the objective is to break the opposing army and you have all day to do it.

It isn't uncommon for a Warrior scenario, even of 1600 points, to take us about 8 hours. Of course, we play until one army is routed or one player concedes his inevitable rout.

With time removed as a major factor, one of the main disincentives to use close order foot is gone. In fact, some of the toughest nuts to crack are armies that have a solid core of close order foot designed for hth.


I have nothing against the tournament time limits, if that is your thing, but I think playing to rout is a bit more realistic. That said, I have noticed that many of the comments and analysis here are all about tournament play.

Does anyone else play the full day's battle? If so, what tactics, lists, or gambits have you found effective that you don't find in the tournament analysis posts?

[Bill Chriss]

I understand your feelings, but my experience is that the difference is less than you might initially think. In either tournament or friendly games, the way to decisively defeat the opponent is by demoralizing at least one sizeable command. This takes the same number of bounds, regardless of format. The primary difffernce between friendly games and tournament games is not tactics, it is pace of the game. A friendly game can take up to 2 hours just to set up, and once begun can last for many hours just because there is no time limit. Each format is useful. Tournaments are ideal for competition. Friendly games at a more leisurely pace provide better teaching and learning opportunities and better ability to appreciate the history and pageantry involved in the game and the quality of the figures and workmanship of their owner/painter.

As someone who LOVES infantry (including pikemen, hoplites, and artillery which is even slower) I can suggest that there are ways to engage the enemy within 7 bounds (the usual tournament game length in my experience). BTW, my experience is that friendly games also last 7-8 bounds, each bound just takes a lot longer because there is no rush. In both formats there are games that take fewer or more bounds to decide, but that is a function of the army matchup, not the format.

Don't be afraid to forced march your close order foot to table center. This is hardly ever necessary in 25mm because the deployment zone is already only 2 march segments from table center. The difference with 15mm is being ameliorated by Scott's statement that in future, deployment zones will be 9" deep instead of 6", a welcome change (I'd argue for even 3" more though) . I think that the more I've played in tournaments, the more I have observed that the tactics are not significantly different than in friendly games. It's just more of a pressure cooker for obvious competitive reasons.

[Ewan McNay]

You guys must have posted just before the forum collapsed .

I guess I can *conceive* of a game taking 8 hours, but not one that I'm involved in. We used to play 'to the death' tournaments occasionally back in the UK, but the longest game I recall (between Seleucid and Alex Mac) was still <5 hours. And that was with much beer, chat, and absence of pressure.

Outside tournament settings? Yep, sure; one example would be the periodic 'housecons' that e.g. Bill Low hosts up here in CT. As the Greek notes, though, the thing that ends battles - as in history - is morale of one side breaking, and that generally happens in only a couple-few hours. If the losing army is exclusively high-morale, it can take longer, but that tends to mean relatively few units and hence bigger gaps when a hole is created, so not everlasting.

I can actually imagine that a certain style of player, in a 'to-the-death' setting, would set up a wall of pike surrounding the baggage on a hill behind ditched palisade. Yeah, that feels like fun .

[Mark Stone]

Perhaps it's a little counter-intuitive, but I don't actually think longer games help close order foot. Here's what I mean:

As a tournament player, I know that I'm going to see a fair number of armies that are predominantly close order foot. They may not be the majority, but they are sufficiently prevalent that I have to assume that in order to win a tournament I have to decisively beat a close order foot army.

So my tournament-winning (should I be so lucky) battle plan includes how to decisively break a close order foot army in, say, 8 bounds or less. Adding more time to the battle doesn't really help the close order foot army. It helps me in beating the close order foot army.

Now, I do think there are armies that benefit from more time. These are basically going to be armies where the shock troops win steadily, but don't necessarily have as much impact at first contact. By way of example, let me contrast 2 stands of SHK vs. 2 stands of HCh as shock troops.

SHK hit much harder at first contact against pretty much all opponents. They have 5 figures fighting instead of 6 (HCh get 4 horses + 2 crew), but at generally much higher factors for much more overall damage. However, against an opponent that has been beaten but not broken, the HCh are going to be much tougher on subsequent bounds. In a follow up, the HCh are still 6 figures, whereas the SHK are just 3. The HCh in follow up are at close to the same factors as when charging (probably looking at only a -1 for tired). The SHK are typically fighting both tired and disordered. This is partly because at two stands they are only 6 figures, whereas at 2 models, the HCh count as 10 figures. So in a prolonged engagement where you win but do not rout at contact, you're better off with HCh than SHK.

The problem is that HCh beat fewer things than SHK, and rout at contact even fewer things. So HCh can be great in a long, drawn out battle where you pick your fights more carefully and expect melees to be drawn out over several bounds. SHK are great when you need decisive results as quickly as possible. Hence we see a lot of SHK in tournaments, but not so many HCh.

There's a similar contrast with 2HCT and HTW. In an initial charge HTW tends to hit slightly harder and has good chance to break many foot opponents at contact. However, HTW drops in hitting power dramatically after the first bound of combat. 2HCT retains much the same hitting power bound after bound, while becoming slightly more vulnerable on subsequent bounds due to being shiedless. The upshot is that in a long, drawn out, mulit-bound melee, you're better off having 2HCT. In actual tournament play, HTW is far more prevalent.

So there are armies that lose out in the time-compressed tournament format, but not so many as you might think. And the difference has more to do with impact vs. durability than fast vs. slow.


-Mark Stone

[suvarov]

Mark...

Nice points, but combat itself is not my concern with close order foot.

It is even REACHING combat in a couple of hours. A decently screened force can delay an engagement with enemy close order foot a long time ... buying time while hoping that events elsewhere on the battlefield develop favorably. Think of a Carthaginian force screeing in the center while trying to achieve a decisive result on the flanks of a Roman force.

Delay, however, like table space, is not infinite. And the close order foot can eventually get in there. In tournaments, does this dynamic of time-force-space occur? I see it frequently in our no-time-limit games.

Perhaps this is not the attitude of tournament players, but it seems a player willing to accept a 0-0 tie could play a ponderous but tough foot army, put it on some hills (and even stakes in some cases as one poster suggested) and wreck the tournament.

I have never played the tournament format, so perhaps I am looking at it differently than everybody else.

[srawls]

You need to remember that Warrior is a combined arms game. If your opponents light troops are stalling your close formation foot, then you're not letting the other troops in your army do their job. Try interspersing some cavalry in with your foot and use that to run down the light infantry.

As far as an 8 hour game goes, here in Jacksonville we tend to much shorter games. 3 hours seems to be the norm, with 2 - 2.5 hour games not that uncommon. Familiarity with the rules definitely helps in this regard, as does writing your army list in advance. If you haven't started bound 1 by the 30 minute mark, someone is stalling.
Steve

[jamiepwhite]

In Jacksonville, I think Derek and I are the fastest players, some games have ended at around an hour or so. Since then, I no longer lead assaults with my CinC and army standard. I've returned the favor too, Derek is no longer as fond of Voynuks in Ottoman turks after they set off a disaster on him one time.

Actually, one of my NICT games was around an hour, from the same cause. I think it was poor Matt Kolmer, his CinC was in combat in the middle of a line of south american Indians (Tlaxcallan?) and rolled -3. Standard went down, wavers failed everywhere, end of game.

Jamie

[Mark Stone]

[suvarov]

Mark, I read your comments regarding my posting that asserted that successful tournament armies are not necessarily the same as successful "non-tournament" format armies.

At first you said that close order foot is JUST FINE in tournaments. Now, on another topic from list lore you say:


>Now a bit of a tangent: while the circulating combatants rule certainly makes Romans more durable, no one has really figured out how to make an open tournament viable army out of this.


Gosh, where have I heard that before? That is EXACTLY my point.

>Add to that the fact that HI are slow, and can't really close with the enemy quickly enough before the Roman flanks start collapsing, and it's just a tough problem to solve.

Wow, that is almost verbatim the point I made and you rebutted. ???

So, for the record, now, do you or do you not think that close order foot armies are disadvantaged in a time limited tournament setting in which a faster enemy can avoid contact or evade the heavy close order foot until the clock runs out?

And yes, the flanks are an issue for the Romans, but it evading away in the center is much more appealing when you know the clock will run out before the piper ever need be paid. In an all day game, if you delay contact with the Roman foot until you are 6" from your own table edge, you will pay a steep price when they hit.

[Frank Gilson]

Romans problems are not so much that they enemy can evade away from them indefinitely.

It's that generally they have little to combine with their foot to attack the enemy as well as the narrow frontage they occupy.

Therefore, if you are a Roman opponent, I'm going to try to keep the table open, at least on my half...so...when you push my center back, suddenly you have empty flanks hanging open unanchored and can't continue to charge me.

If the Romans had a good supply of viable lancers (at least EHC L,Sh) or elephants or some such that would really help.

They can often get a good combination of lights, especially dipping into some allies here and there, but again the points expense of the main infantry leaves little for those as well.

Other armies that can make use of a bunch of close order foot have ways to use combined arms (lancers, elephants, shooters) and to extend frontage (don't all have to be shielded HI.) The maneuver capabilities of an 8 element regular MI unit are very impressive. You can't afford to run an 8 element Roman legion.

If you want to use combined arms and Romans, I think you should look at Later Judean (list #14 in Imperial Warrior.) Good LI, some bow armed LC, some EHC L,Sh, some peltasts.

Or Numidian, in Classical Warrior, list#36, where you can combine 8 elephants with a bunch of legions (although not much else of particular use apart from solid LI.)

Nothing's ever simple, it is always complex, especially so the issue of Romans and the overall role of close order foot.

Frank

[Frank Gilson]

I'll put my effort where my postulating is...

Later Judean
Imperial Warrior
List#14
CinC Reg A EHC L,Sh in 2E unit Reg A/B EHC L,Sh 167
2E Reg B EHC L,Sh 88
6E Irr C LC B 73
6E Irr C LI B,Sh/B 55
6E Irr C LI JLS,Sh 61
6E Irr C LI S,Sh 61
2 units of 4E Reg B LMI LTS,JLS,Sh 212
16 Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh 90

Marian Roman Ally in 1E body Reg B HC JLS,Sh 97
3 units of 4E Reg C HI HTW,Sh (legions) 318
2 units of 2E Reg C HI HTW,Sh (legion supports) 116
4E Irr C LC JLS,Sh 73
8E Irr C LC B 89
2 units of 4E Irr C LI S,Sh 98
1598 pts, 2 commands, 18 units, 1 body, 72 scouting

Try and skirmish, using LC and LI units operating hand-in-hand with peltasts mixed in here and there. Back the 3 legions up with the small units and the lancers.

[Frank Gilson]

Ok...now following my own Numidian suggestion, 8 elephants plus legionaries.

Classical Warrior
List#36
Numidian (Roman Civil Wars period)

CinC in 2E Irr B LC JLS,Sh 121
4 units of 2Elephant Irr C JLS/JLS 420
2 units of 6E Irr C LI JLS,Sh 122
8E Irr C LI B,Sh/B 65
2 units of 4E Irr C LI S,Sh 98
2 units of 4E Irr C LC JLS,Sh 146

Roman Ally in 2E Reg B HC JLS,Sh 130
3 units of 4E Reg C HI HTW,Sh (legions) 318
3 units of 2E Reg C HI HTW,Sh (legion supports) 174
1594 pts, 2 commands, 19 units, 46 scouting

It's tricky to get the Elephants plus Legions line integrated and attacking, especially due to their being in separate commands. Basically you have to set up the Roman command entirely behind the Numidian command, elephants right there in front.

Also tricky is the fact that the elephants get 3 march moves, and the Legions only two...so you'll likely skip one or two marches for the elephants on bound one, and perhaps skip one march for them on bound two.